User talk:Smalljim/Archive 4

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

Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

Pasty (revisited)

I've added refs to the pasty as Cornwall's "national dish". Rest assured I'm not trying to push a nationalist POV in doing that (I'm more usually castigated by nationalists in Cornwall and Wales for being either an English nationalist or a unionist, neither of which are true either, so I think I'm pretty neutral), but I think that refs to it as such are notable and supported by reliable sources. I've not tried to add it in at National dish - I think that is a battle I will leave to others. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. Google shows that the term "national dish" is also widely associated with Yorkshire (the pudding), Birmingham (balti) and London (various) too, so it is commonly used in a very sloppy fashion. In the article, though, would it be better to put it in quotes?
Incidentally I've been wondering whether the ==Cornish Pasty== heading should be ==The Cornish Pasty== or even ==The "Cornish Pasty"==. What do you think?  —SMALLJIM  11:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally I'd leave the heading as it is. Re putting "national" in scare quotes - whatever is done is likely to lead to edit warring from one side or the other, so I'd leave it as it is and let either side kick off when they notice it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. Been looking at Not a bad site at all: at least it passes the first test - compare that with its reviews of other pasty books :)  —SMALLJIM  14:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - didn't notice the duplication re arsenic.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem! The "discarded crust" assertion is one of those that doesn't seem to be supported by good evidence, as far as I can see. It would be interesting to find the earliest mention of it - I suspect it wouldn't be very long ago.  —SMALLJIM  10:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a note - the earliest ref that I've found so far to pasty crusts being discarded because of arsenic is in a letter to the editor on p.13 of The Times of 27 Sept 1980. It's interesting that the correspondent, who says she is a Cornishwoman living in exile, also claims that "Sometimes the pasty contained meat and potato at one end, and apple at the other..." which is one of the other dubious assertions.  —SMALLJIM  12:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dean of Exeter

Following on from the Cathedral library: I have filled in a link for one of the 18th century deans (Lyttleton, he has half a page in Lloyd (1967), p. 16). Do you know of a useful source of information on the missing 19th & 20th century deans?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit of searching shows that they all have articles already, but no-one bothered to update the list. I've done so now! And made a few associated additions and corrections too.  —SMALLJIM  13:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
That improves it greatly, and the 12th century has one dean too. There is a calendar of the bishops' registers Hingeston-Randolph, F. C., ed. Episcopal Registers: Diocese of Exeter. 10 vols. London: George Bell, 1886-1915 (for the period 1257 to 1455), but how it would be consulted except in libraries I am not sure.--Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about a 12th C. dean - all the refs seem to say Serlo was the first. Some at least of Hingeston-Randolph's texts are online at, but I haven't looked at them: I've completed the list from the 1955 Devonshire Association Transactions article (as cited) - hope it looks OK. By the way, Template:Deans of Exeter probably needs a few further adjustments to match, if you're interested :)  —SMALLJIM  22:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Devil's Footprints

It's great to see the work you're doing on this article, long overdue, but The Sun will fool nobody as a reliable source for anything other than what was published in The Sun. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was there already - I just moved it to the end. I haven't removed it because although it superficially looks like a poor reference, I think that with a bit of rewording it can be used to demonstrate the sensationalism that's still attracted by topics such as this.  —SMALLJIM  10:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Archdeacons of Cornwall

Hello, There are some gaps in the List of Archdeacons of Cornwall and I wonder if you could suggest any useful sources of information.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing immediately evident, is there? Even the online index to the later Fasti doesn't seem to include the details for the ones already in the article (George Hall, Blackburne etc.). The only suggestions I could make would be to see if there's anything in Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries, or The Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall - there's at least one early volume on Google Books. Or maybe the Institute of Cornish Studies has something? Or a search on "Archdeacons of Cornwall" at the Cornwall Record Office online catalogue throws up a couple of hits that may be worth following up. Hope this helps a bit.  —SMALLJIM  12:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, those look worth following up given a fair amount of time. For the period since 1878 there is an annual Truro diocesan kalendar, later Truro diocesan yearbook, then Truro diocesan directory but a set of those would exist only in a few libraries. Up to 1835 this could be useful too: but I have not used it recently. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Victorian restoration

Hi Smalljim, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Victorian restoration and there are issues with referencing. Could you take a look at my comments and reply at the nomination page after addressing the issue? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - looking into this, will respond there.  —SMALLJIM  13:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

AWB edits

Hello Smalljim, in adding wikilinks to Victorian restoration with AWB, please could you leave the formatting of citations alone with regards to whether or not source names are in italics. According to the manual of style, generally website names are not rendered in italics. There is some disagreement over this, but without clear consensus, it's best to leave it up to the preferred style of the original editor. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 18:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC) (Nice work, by the way, it's an interesting article.--BelovedFreak 18:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC) )

Hi and thanks for the comments. This isn't something that I've been doing intentionally - it's one of AWB's automatic general fixes, and if I turn that function off, then away go all the other useful wikignomelike changes that it makes to articles. The italicisation process appears to be referred to in AWB's documentation here; that bullet was added in this edit last December, though I don't know if the program did the same thing before then.
So - bottom line - I can't be the only one causing these changes to citations, and they'll get changed back the next time someone uses AWB on an article (with general fixes on, which is the default). If you think AWB shouldn't be making this change, e.g. if it conflicts with MOS, you ought to raise it at WT:AWB. Having said that I'll try to keep an eye out for AWB making these changes and stop them for you. Only about 1,300 churches still to check! Best wishes  —SMALLJIM  13:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I can't say I really understand AWB, and yes, I have noticed a few other people doing it (you've just popped up quite often on my watchlist recently!) I can't say I really understand AWB but I suppose it would be difficult to change this since it would be difficult for AWB to know whether or not something in the "work" field is a book, journal, website or whatever. I realise there are other templates to use like {{cite web}}, but I find it more difficult to ensure consistency within the article with those. Ah well, I shall just continue to keep an eye on my watchlisted items! :) --BelovedFreak 15:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I still think it may be worth asking about it on the AWB talk page: the program is pretty clever at spotting different templates and responding appropriately to them.  —SMALLJIM  20:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The citation templates automatically add formatting depending on the field. |work= will automatically render its content in italics. Adding italics marks will flip back it into plain type. I have seen some editors use it this way, but it is far from usual. I hope that answers the question. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't seem to have (yet) been reached regarding the rendering of websites in citations. I still see this being brought up at WP:FAC discussions (ie. people nominating articles are asked to remove italics from website names. In my experience (which is limited, I'm no means an expert on the templates) using the {{cite}} set of templates leads to other inconsistencies between eg. {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}. So, for me (and others), for the time being it's easier just to use {{Citation}} and add italic marks to flip them back (unless there's a better solution I'm missing...) Anyway, I noticed your recent edit summaries Smalljim, and it's much appreciated. Thanks! Well done with the DYK too. :) --BelovedFreak 14:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks! Regarding citation rendering, a quick glance at that discussion suggests that between plain text and italics lies a wide boundary that will need much more talk before it can be partitioned accurately. It's a shame there isn't a semi-italic face that could be used in cases of doubt ;)  —SMALLJIM  22:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Victorian restoration

Materialscientist (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd like to applaud you for the article. I'm not usually interested in subjects like this, but the article is well written on the whole, and presented the case in an interesting way. But please watch out for editorialising. My only significant criticism is that there may be a better way of presenting the story than to lift a paragraph straight out of Eastlake (p.190-1) – I'm referring to the paragraph that begins with "no service could be too simple, no chapel could be too plain". Cheers, and keep up the good work. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice article; thanks. It links with many articles I have started and makes a useful connection. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both, for those kind words! I knew at the time, Ohconfucius, that the para I lifted from Eastlake really ought to have been rewritten. But it had such a fine rhythm and seemed to explain the position so well, being both broadly understandable and yet vividly redolent of musty old church buildings, that I was loath to break into it. But I agree that unexplained terms like "idolatrous gewgaws" don't meet today's encyclopedic requirements - so I will hack it up. I realised some time ago, possibly whilst reading some of your church articles, Peter, that although we regularly talk about churches that were "restored" by Scott et al., I really had little idea of the term's context, and discovered that neither did WP. So I am quite pleased that with a bit of research I was able to fill a gap in WP's coverage. There's plenty more that could be said though.  —SMALLJIM  21:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit

at Gothic Revival architecture could use a reference if you have one handy. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There you go. I had to rewrite the para a bit, and I've removed the unreferenced bit about 'archaeological Gothic' producing some of the most convincingly mediæval buildings of the revival - a quick on-line search didn't reveal anything to confirm that.
Incidentally, do you agree that there's a problem with the links to Ecclesiology? I'm pretty sure that the word was coined by the Cambridge Camden Soc., but it seems to have changed its meaning since the 19th C. The article as it stands seems to be only peripherally related.  —SMALLJIM  23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I was not even going to request a citation from your addition except that I asked myself "What would you do if that edit came from an unregistered editor?" and the answer was "I'd do something", so I contacted you. The "Ecclesiology" thing is what I call a "cute" edit or link and I do them myself on occasion. It's not (opinion) a good habit. I was at a community theatre play last night and there was a quick scene where an optometrist is having a blindish patient read a letter chart starting with a huge "E". The patient is not getting it until he turns his head sideways, and then says "M". That is sort of how I need to look at ecclesiology to get it to work. But as long as I don't have to spell it, oh well. It did remind me that i was planning to take a run at the cemetery section of that article some time ago and should try something .... keeping in mind that you are likely to resopond to my edit with a "so, do you have a reference for that statement?" Carptrash (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Grin. You're quite right to ask for a reference: I was being lazy and following the current rather deficient referencing of the article. The spread of Victorian restoration is, after all, quite an improbable story - suitable for a TV programme, I should think. Regarding ecclesiology, if I can find the enthusiasm I'll marshal my references and mount an attack on it.  —SMALLJIM  11:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably about Lil Nan

How dare you delete such a good and useful article. I have permisson to distrubute it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookiejjr (talkcontribs) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you read your talk page? That'll explain.  —SMALLJIM  19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Converts and adjectives

Jim, I noticed the thread at the convert template. You were very kind to do some manual fixes. I hope the faulty edits can be fixed soon, so please let me know if the issue is unresolved by a day or so. I'm a wikifriend of Lightmouse's, and am keen to see him continue his good auto work; so clearly this glitch needs to be righted. Thanks. Tony (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Kind? Well maybe - I mainly did it to get a good idea of the amount of damage that has been done: it is quite substantial and it's clearly Lightmouse's responsibility to get the remaining errors fixed. I notified him of these faulty edits three days ago now, and he's only done one of them [1] despite being here each day since. As I said in the other thread, unless they are fixed quickly I feel that it would not go well with him in his request to get the bot re-approved.
Now since my last post in that other thread, I've been reading an old Arbcom case - I'm sure you're familiar with it! But I wasn't, and I didn't know that Lightmouse has been 'indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever' (apart from approved bot tasks). If that includes the use of AWB merely for "turning the pages", then I can perhaps understand his reticence in starting on these necessary repairs. Of course if this was the real world, knowing that you had no such restriction, I might wait until he was out of earshot and whisper to you, "as his friend, why don't you give him a hand?"
Do note, though, that this is a side-issue that I discovered while looking through Lightbot's edits. I wouldn't support unblocking the bot without a new BRFA to clarify the boundaries of what it can do. One of the major unresolved issues seems to be whether it should replace existing manual conversions with ones based on {{convert}}, per the original messages of 4–5 Oct at User talk:Lightmouse.
I've noted at Template talk:Convert that I've replied to you here.  —SMALLJIM  16:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I've suggested that he prepare the script for a fix and that another editor do the run. I have a Mac, and thus can't use AWB. I'd already offered to do some manuals, but let's see if an auto fix can be done. Tony (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It's being fixed. Tony (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this problem, guys - fancy bumping into you again so soon, Ohconfucius! Undoing the edits is certainly faster than correcting them, as I tried to do. Well that ends my current interest in this matter, though I suppose I'll have to comment if L18 goes blue. Best,  —SMALLJIM  11:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
LM has actually made a huge positive difference to the English WP, from the early days until now. He pioneered the shift towards providing metric conversions, for example. On this occasion, I think he's rightly upset about his being blocked a couple of weeks ago by a trigger-happy admin who thinks he knows better than the bot approvals group that approved the current arrangement; actually, I believe it has caused private irritation among more than one BAG member, who thinks LM should be able to just get on with the job. OK, LM screwed up this time, and would normally have leapt into the fixes; I think the unfair block, which prevents his doing the fixes automatically, is playing on him emotionally. Please forgive; I think he'll return to normal when the block is resolved. We're just lucky you discovered the glitch. Tony (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Lightmouse was not blocked; Lightbot was. The "current arrangement" was not approved by the BAG; I challenge you to provide a diff that proves me wrong. And I am not trigger-happy. Kindly desist from further spreading these lies. Hesperian 04:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding LM, I rather got the impression that that might be the case. Speaking generally, I suppose the perfect Wikipedian would have boundless enthusiasm restrained by a careful eye for fine detail, and a delicate sensitivity to other people's feelings. We all fall short in one aspect or another, of course.  —SMALLJIM  12:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
For completeness I've fixed the 90-odd older bad edits that weren't on the list.  —SMALLJIM  13:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hesperian, which bit of my post was the lie? Tony (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    • WTF? I've just told you which bits were lies. Am I suddenly speaking another language? This is the third time in a row that you've been unable to correctly parse the obvious meaning out of a simple comment. Hesperian 09:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. You may both think you're doomed to fight, Eternal Champion-like, until the end of all things; but please go and do it in another dimension, you're making a mess on my carpet.  —SMALLJIM  09:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Gnarboots deletion


I'm surprised that you deleted the band Gnarboots from wikipedia. Gnarboots is a fairly large band in San Jose, CA, and probably has the largest name recognition in the South Bay of the San Francisco area. Plus, they are due to release a record on Asian man Records, one of the four largest punk labels worldwide, in additon to their previous releases.

What info do you need to re-instate the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you would need to show that the band is notable enough to have an article here. You'd do this by providing reliable sources that are independent of the subject—our notability guideline gives full details of what this involves. The article as it stood(*) gave no indication of any notability and although a quick Google search showed a lot of hits, none of them seemed to be particularly "reliable" or "independent".
(*) This was the article that was deleted: Gnarboots (pronounced G.N.A.R.B.O.O.T.S.) are a rock band from California. The band is currently signed to Phat N Phunky and will release its first album in 2012. The band recently completed a happy birthday concert for everyone's birthday to help promote the new Mixtape, "Happy Birthday". On September 9th, 2008, they were not a band yet. wikipedia has the best captchas. Their live shows consist of claims of time travel, Big Game Hunter, and freestyle sexual dancing.
Hope this helps —SMALLJIM  20:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Smalljim! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Meant to do...?

Good grief! I certainly didn't mean to do that. (Beehive ammo article) I thought that I had deleted the vandalism! Lord knows what actually happened, but I was called away for domestic reasons and seem to have made some sort of cockup. Bee all that as it may, many thanks for fixing it! JonRichfield (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

S'alright - a quick glance at your contributions showed that it must have been unintentional.  —SMALLJIM  12:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

TimeClock Plus

Hi Smalljim. Thanks for building an article on TimeClock Plus. I wrote the Data Management Inc. wiki that you used. I'm writing because I built a TimeClock Plus wiki yesterday and it's in queue for review: The View History shows it was built on 11/15 and your article was created today (11/16). Can you remove yours? I didn't want to flag it or involve Wikipedia, but just talk to you directly. I've put a lot of time and thought into this research project (this past summer and these past months), researching Data Management and TimeClock Plus through articles and interviews, with the cooperation of Data Management Inc. So this has been a passionate project for me that will hopefully be approved. You had no way of knowing this article was already built so I totally understand. Please let me know. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bear with me - I don't have time now, but I'll reply in more depth later. Your new draft still reads like a PR piece to me. Have a look at our conflict of interest guideline and think about what you wwould have written if you were not connected in some way with the company - it may be that the best article would be a combination of both our versions. —SMALLJIM  18:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the conflict of interest. That concern was presented to me during the Data Management Inc. wiki so I sought out good, solid articles on the subject, from notable sources, independent of the software provider, and interviews, which allowed the Data Management Inc. wiki to be successful. When I wrote the TimeClock Plus wiki, there were not enough secondary sources, so I had to re-write it, which I did, and now everything in that article is based on literature provided by secondary, reliable sources, strictly describing the purpose, use of this system, and features with the goal to be as informative as I can be on the subject. The sources I used were used for my Data Management Inc. wiki so the article should pass. Your version is taken directly from my Data Management Inc. article. I understand that you're just trying to build a topic (we have the same goal), but it's research that I've spent months building, so I really would like to be the contributor of that. Also my article was already submitted for review, so it would mean a lot to me it if you could honor that. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If something in the article specifically strikes you as promotional then please tell me and let me improve on the already submitted article instead of creating another under the same name. As far as a "combination of both our versions," with respect sir, there is no "our" as the content you're using came straight from my Data Management Inc. wiki. Please appreciate how much time I put into researching this (some of that research cost me as older news articles were archived). If you want to suggest ways for me to improve on the article I submitted yesterday then please do, but this isn't right. I really need to be the original contributor of this because the information, e-mails, phone calls, interviews - everything - took months of my time. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. You really ought to have done a little research on Wikipedia itself before starting to write an article, because you do seem to misunderstand how this encyclopedia works. Nobody writes their own article: editing Wikipedia is a collaborative effort - see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Consensus for a start. So you are very welcome to work on the existing article, just as I'm able to make changes to Data Management Inc. - which I probably will.
You've also got the wrong end of the stick regarding "my" version of the TimeClock Plus article, though I can understand why. This is what actually happened: you wrote an article that read like an advert and it was nominated for speedy deletion on that ground. I came across the nomination and started to "fundamentally" rewrite it (offline) to "become encyclopedic", because I thought the software was probably just about notable enough. But before I could replace the article with a cleaned-up version another administrator deleted it, so I left it at that. I was then mostly offline for a few days, but having some free time today, I finished off a shortened version and put it up - hence the edit summary: "Recreate advert-free". In the meantime you produced another version under the Articles for creation page.
So, as I said above, please feel free to edit the current article - I agree that there's room for expansion, but you do need to ensure that the result remains encyclopedic, free from any taint of advertising, and neutral. In fact, if we work together on the article, it could eventually end up as one of the good articles on software, alongside these few others.  —SMALLJIM  21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing is a collaborative effort and much of these months have been spent working with other editors. They've coached me so that I have been able to produce good, solid articles that are based on secondary sources, including prominent publications. Your existing article was not only posted after a TimeClock Plus article was already in queue for review and improvement, but there is a copyright violation that has already been reported to Wikipedia (after I conferred with editors at the live desk), since you took content, including quotations gathered from personal interviews (such as the development of a DOS version) and the logo which was licensed for me to use by Data Management Inc., and pasted it. I understand you plan to change that, but that logo is not yours, and the article you created was already created, but being reviewed. You even took the sidebar I tweaked (which is a minor point). I appreciate you trying to build an article, but one was already in queue, and if you have some concerns with it, you need to send those to me, and I'll work with you. You can be a contributor to it. If you had beat me to the punch, I would stand down, but you didn't.

I'm sorry we can't agree on this, but I was advised to file an official complaint to Wikipedia council. I presented my concerns, with a background including dates and times of our articles because this is something I put a lot of time into, so I'm sorry. I will defer to their judgement since they will know better than either of us how to proceed. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Um - can I suggest that you read those links that I posted above. There really is no concept of article ownership here - honestly! On every edit page there's a reminder: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." So I'm really sorry if you've spent a lot of your time expecting your exact words to remain unchanged forever, but that just won't happen here. And I repeat that I'm very happy to work with you towards improving the article - there is a lot of value in what you have written, and you write well, but it's a matter of treading the line between accuracy and advocacy, which, just perhaps, I have a little more experience in.  —SMALLJIM  22:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate your experience. I do not expect my content to be static. I understand and expect it to change. I like the idea of working with other editors. My concern is that my article was already posted and being reviewed and improved upon. I'd love to work with you on making my article better, but I'd like to make changes and expand on the article I built. If you want to completely change it, I'm open to that idea, but again, the original article. Does that make sense? Dmarkwilliams (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well OK. If you really don't want to add to what's there now, I have no objection to starting work from the version at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TimeClock Plus. So I'll pull that across into article space and then edit it a bit. Give me an hour or so to do that. Then we can discuss where to go from there.  —SMALLJIM  23:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And you would be willing to delete your article once we agree upon a better version for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TimeClock Plus? This means a lot and I really do look forward to getting your input on how this article can be better. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, done that, as above. An edited version of "your" article is now at TimeClock Plus. There's a lot more work to be done, but that's enough for today.  —SMALLJIM  00:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Update. Damn! I've just realised that I've done a cut'n'paste move, losing Dmarkwilliams' attribution. Sorry! I'll fix it first thing in the morning. —SMALLJIM  01:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you looking into this, but the link took me to the article you created. I may be misunderstanding, so forgive me, but the article I created, currently in queue for review, is the one I'd like us to make changes to, expand on, etc. The idea is not for a tag or anything to show I wrote the article, but for us to make changes to the article I created, so that it shows up as an article that I created. I'm not one of those users who wants to have hundreds of articles for bragging rights, but I'm really proud of this project, and invested a lot to get the information, so I'd like it to be on my list of created articles. I hope that makes sense. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I've fixed the page move so your work is now correctly attributed in the edit history. My apologies for that oversight. So I think we're done here and further discussion should take place on the article's talk page. Agreed? —SMALLJIM  11:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgive the late response. I did not have any time yesterday and I probably won't get to it today, but I did take a look and I like a lot of the changes you made. I agree, let's discuss the article further on the article's talk page. Thank you again for honoring the investment I put into this and for helping me improve on it. It's nice to have a partner on here. My last question on your page relates to wiki process: how did you do it (shift origin)? For my knowledge. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's one of the technical tools granted to administrators - if you have lots of such questions you could find our Adopt a user programme useful.
Finally, it might be politic to indicate that you are happy to withdraw your request for formal mediation. A short addition to this section would do. Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  15:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm sorry. I had planned to first thing this morning, but I got pulled away. I'll comment on it now. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I posted my desire to end the mediation, made some changes just now to it to briefly reflect the confusion (since our discussion is a lot to read through), and as a further gesture of appreciation, I posted a comment on your talk page (under mediation) as I do not want it's mention to possibly give you a bad reputation. Once more, thank you for understanding my need to have title of this article. It means a lot. On the TimeClock Plus article, we'll be in touch. On future contributions, I hope you will continue to be a resource. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "TimeClock Plus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 November 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

For everyone's knowledge, this mediation should not reflect on Smalljim. I was the party responsible for beginning this mediation, but my complaint was issued too soon as I was unaware of the dispute resolution process. There was miscommunication between Smalljim and I, but further discussion allowed us to resolve my concern and he took considerable time to provide me with good suggestions that improved my article. He is a good editor to work with and I look forward to future feedback from this experienced resource. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning TimeClock Plus, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [] 17:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Theodore Beale

Fabulous work over there. Thanks!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of you. I saw it at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and thought it needed a new start. It's far from perfect, of course, but I reckon it forms a more balanced basis for further work by those interested in the topic.  —SMALLJIM  21:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing to pursue the disruptive editor on his talk page. Will you be proposing a block? (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but don't misunderstand - I'm not "pursuing" anyone, I'm just trying to remedy the current unsatisfactory situation at that article. The ideal result would be User:Xday, with his undoubted writing skills, becoming one of our productive editors: he could contribute a lot to SF-related articles, for instance. BTW, have you got anywhere with the question of the Beale discography that you raised on the talk page? (I'd suggest replying there, not here)  —SMALLJIM  11:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

quiet removals

Probably for the best, true, but why are you also trying to cover up this information, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

. .

Regarding Warriors

Hi Smalljim:

While I appreciate you trying to encourage the work of new users, I would like to point out that, in my opinion, the list does not add in any way to Wikipedia: the list is already present in the navbox (and might I say it? it's more organized and compact in the navbox insetad of as an article). This, as well as the fact that all the books are already listed out, along with plot details, in the main Warriors (novel series) article. With these points in mind, I would personally either redirect it, or request CSD A10.

If it were me, I would encourage the new user to help out instead by improving the numerous articles on the books themselves, which coudl all do with improvement, especially the newer ones.

Brambleclawx 23:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brambleclawx! That would be fine. Although I thought that a separate list page wouldn't be out of place, per WP:CLN, if you want to follow up on your suggestion and explain on his talk page what he could do to help (remove my message to him if it's confusing), then please do. As you can probably tell, my main concern here is about a new user with apparent potential being brushed aside by new page patrol.  —SMALLJIM  23:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh look at that, you already did! Bravo.  —SMALLJIM  23:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Harry Hems, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Cutler (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) 11:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Hems

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hyde Park Junior School

Nice work on Hyde Park Junior School. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Prof. Parawahera Wajiragnana Thera

I don't see how this was a speedy a7-- it asserted he was a university professor, had was president of a society. It'll need some checking, and I'm not sure we'll find the evidence for WP:PROF, but we might. (I know I have the ability to do so myself, but I want to ask you first.) DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick answer: I'd be the last person to ever claim infallibility, so if you think it has a chance please feel free to reinstate it. All I'd add is that if an article has very little chance of ever being expanded beyond a stub, then it's better merged into a parent article. (I'm sure I read that somewhere, and it seems sensible.) Best,  —SMALLJIM  21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Ricks wikipedia arcticle

sorry for that i did not finish the arcticle. but you were very fast for checking. can you give me a template for bio of living persons or give me a link to that. thank you ateamfan79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ateamfan79 (talkcontribs) 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the help ateamfan79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ateamfan79 (talkcontribs) 13:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

FIRST Team 2996

Hello, I am the website designer for the website and I am also hoping to create a Wikipedia page for our team. Several F.I.R.S.T. Robotics teams use Wikipedia to do research on other teams so that we can find how their team works and the history on them. For this reason, using Wikipedia was a resource to let the community know how we operate along with other teams. Our team is very professional and is run like a business, we also are very involved in making the community a better way, we consider ourselves an organization. Is there a reason you deleted our page and why I can not re-make the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2996User (talkcontribs) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi 2996User. I've replied on your talk page.  —SMALLJIM  22:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


I literally just destroyed my page and someone else had submitted. What did I do wrong? As someone with a strong page what would you suggest I do next? I know you are very busy. I am sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hershdavis (talkcontribs) 16:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're really interested in contributing to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you couldn't do better than to follow the guidance at Your First Article - basically edit some existing articles first and/or write about something other than yourself. Sorry, but the community here is pretty harsh on what's seen as self-promotion; we do see an awful lot of it.  —SMALLJIM  16:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to use factual information with good resources. I understand that self promotion is the worst thing you can do, but is it just cause I personally made the edits? I followed all suggestions, added 5 plus new references and took out a lot of the parts that were requested. Is it just cause I personally did it? I was very factual in my statements, have you looked at the article? I spent all night editing it up. I know it is not personal and the community at large should prevent self-promotion but I did look at the guidance of first article, but I did not personally submit the first article. Someone informed me that I was set for deletion so I tried to respond to the needs of the community. The information provided was all from reliable resources. Hershdavis (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Do please help us by working on some other articles. It's not cool to use Wikipedia to tell the world about yourself. If you don't like this advice you can ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Cheers. —SMALLJIM  17:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Alot of the other Barnstars would fit you, but a special one seemed appropriate here, while we may disagree about this particular article, you have been patient,civil,kind,helpful,and followed WP:BITE and WP:AAGF diligently. I am also impressed with your previous work, and hope that when the View AfD is closed and the resolution at this point is most likely keep, you and I can work together to address concerns on both sides of the fence that have been raised in the AfD discussion Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I've replied on your talk page. —SMALLJIM  11:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

About deleted article "Zatu"

Hi Smalljim, Smallpete here :-)
Could you possibly WP:USERFY the deleted article into my userspace, and let me know the who the editor who started was, or if that's not appropriate then email me about this? I had a little read of the en.wp article. Yep, a good WP:A7. But El Mundo appears to be of the opinion that Zatu is well "Old Skool"; see also es:Zatu and es:SFDK.
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Content copied to your talk page.  —SMALLJIM  12:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)