User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Timrollpickering. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
- This is an archive of past discussions on my talk page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Image source problem with Image:Bbklogo.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Bbklogo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A406/N Circ
It'll become a moot point soon, as when the extension opens it will overtake Brent Cross as the largest in Greater London/within the M25 (delete as you prefer) as a whole (although if the Thames Gateway plan ever goes forward, Bluewater & Lakeside could possibly come into the "Greater Greater London") — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
help sept 25th notable events
Hi Tim this is Sam
I am in dispute with someone about notable events for sept 25th, if you look at the talk page it should become obvious what we are arguing about. Please can you advise me what i should do next to get a resolution of this dispute. i think we have negotiated a truce at present.
thanks
Sam
Ragingbullfrog 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a look though as you say there's a bit of a truce at the moment - in such circumstances seeking resolution may not be productive (most resolvers will regard the matter as informally settled for now). Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year is perhaps the best place to ask for opinions on the overall matter, since the precedent one way or the other may impact across the range. Timrollpickering 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tim. Could you have a look at this article when you have a chance. I can't really find anything thats notable about this individual but would value a 2nd opinion from yourself. Thanks Galloglass 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looks a clear case of a biography of a candidate/minor backroom party figure. I've nominated the page at AFD. Timrollpickering 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
UUP support
I have to disagree with 1999. Euro elections have always been a disaster, 1999 was not ususual. The 2000 by election was also a blip, seeing as we won it back in 2001, but 2001 was identifiably the start of the rot.Traditional unionist 11:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- There was a swing noticable in 1999 - a 6.2% drop for the UUP and down to their lowest level so far (although they fell further in 2004). And South Antrim was a pretty big shock at the time and although regained in 2001 (primarily due to nationalists tactically voting against McCrea) it had hardly reverted to being the solid vote banker it normally was. Looking back the signs of the decline were clear before 2001. Timrollpickering 11:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- 2000 we can perhaps have an argument about, but the 1999 euros was in line with a pattern of decline, in European Elections. They are unusual elections everywhere, but particularly in Northern Ireland.Traditional unionist 12:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue I (September 2007)
The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! -- Noetic Sage 19:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
See note on its talk page. PamD 10:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for loosing your additions to this page. I was attempting to revert out another user who had deleted some comments and refactored the page. Keith D 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Universities in France
Hello, I'm thrilled to see that you have taken an interest in systematizing the presentation of French universities. It's been a lonely task for the past couple of months. I've been going through the ninety French public universities and either creating pages (most cases) or moving their pages (if necessary) so that the names are rendered in English according to a reasonably consistent approach. Thank you for spotting the Université de La Rochelle, which is a (I hope rare) instance where I missed the fact that there was an existing page under another name before I created the stub. I went ahead and followed up on your merge suggestion. MyPOV 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Qmsu.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Qmsu.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PxMa 01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue II (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Catiline vandalism and abuse
Hey Tim, me again. Wondering whether you could help me out with this one. I logged on to see what Wikipedia had about Catiline the other day, and was astonished by the POV rant that was the lead paragraph. Looking at the history I saw that it had been added quite recently by a user whose name was just their IP address; accordingly I reverted it to the last sensible version, explaining that the revision was POV. I didn't see it as being necessary to take the matter to the Talk page.
Checking back today I see that the same user has re-reverted back to their version several times, after numerous users have reverted it exactly as I first did, and violating 3RR over several days. Checking the talk page, however, I find a rather abusive (and historically questionable, but since I don't have sources to hand I don't particularly want to get into that debate) rant about myself and the reversions from the user.
As an admin, would you mind taking a look at the page, giving your comments and seeing whether there's any action that can be taken against this creature? Lordrosemount —Preceding comment was added at 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've put the page on watch. As there haven't been any problems for 24 hours I won't protect it now but if the problem recurrs I'll put mild protection on. Some admins have left warning notices so if there's repeat action then blocks can be considered. Timrollpickering 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, that was quick, thank you! I'll be watching it too; I hadn't actually noticed the admin comments, so thank you for alerting me. Lordrosemount 12:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I have never seen him referred to as anything other than Vince Cable in the BBC and other national media. Since Wikipedia policy is to use common name for article titles (whether that is a nickname or not), I'm not sure why you consider Vincent Cable to be more appropriate. The name by which he is most commonly known by the population at large is Vince Cable, ergo that should be our title. -- Necrothesp 12:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen "Vincent Cable" quite a bit, include tellingly his own website and "Vince Cable" has always seemed like "Ming Campbell" - a common casual form but rarely used in a more formal written style (a very different case from "Tony Blair"). Timrollpickering 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Although you will note the sidebar entries on his own website! That implies he frequently calls himself Vince. -- Necrothesp 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- And he's also using "Vincent" a lot - the three most recent news stories on the front page go for "Vincent" - and some go for both names in the same text such as the contact page. It's not the most consistent presentation of a single name form, but the URL and, more crucially, the banner headline go for "Vincent", suggesting that's the preferred form for writing but it doesn't seem 100% clearcut either way. Perhaps this is why his local party at times resort to "Dr Cable" - see http://twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/pages/MPlinks.html (although as they also have a page about "Sir Mingis Campbell" and other names - http://twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/pages/SirMingLinks.html - I wonder how much of that site has been put through any style guide or equivalent). Timrollpickering 13:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Shadow Cabinets
How do you explain this then?
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/libdems.cfm
Maybe it's time Wiki changed all the relating articles? Qwerty1985 (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- This one has been an ongoing issue for ages. The Parliament website is using info the webmaster was given by the Lib Dem parliamentary party. The contentious nature of the assumed titles is an ongoing issue and this has been raised before - see the talk page for the frontbench team. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Names in infoboxes / Harold Macmillan
Hi Tim, I haven't been following the arguments, my concern, having seen increasing instances lately, was that such a change was put through as a minor edit, in breach of Help:Minor edit, which depending upon editors account configuration setup, they may not see. Dunno if you're aware of these Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Names in infoboxes
Good idea. I'll comment there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesocialistesq (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue III (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! Noetic Sage 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I have started the COTF project. Please nominate your article for the Editor Nominated Topic ASAP. We'll have results for our first COTF on Thursday, 06 DEC 2007. The First COTF will span from 07 DEC 2007 ~ 20 DEC 2007. This will give us time to experiment with the project and measure the level of our success. As always, I appreciate feedback. Sorry if the instructions seem like I'm the COTF dictator. I'm just trying to get things running...and when we get things on the road we can talk about rotating the moderator position as necessary. Thanks for your support thus far! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
academics, scholars, etc.
Hi timrollpickering -- Some of the folks who commented on a recent CFD for Category:Journalism academics are continuing the conversation on organization academics versus scholars; the conversation is primarily at Category talk:Journalism academics. I noticed you had commented on Category talk:Academics a while back on this very issue & that you're still active in these areas, so I thought you might have opinions or perspectives that would be helpful to figuring out a good approach. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Westminster St George's by-election
Hi, I've just added a brief page here on that by-election. It's very inadequate and, as I believe at some stage in the distant past, you expressed an interest in adding something, I thought I should say something. Out of interest which book is it you have with a chapter about it? Uncantabrigian (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's By-elections in British politics edited by Chris Cook & John Ramsden (UCL Press, 1997) ISBN 1-85728-535-2 and the chapter is by Gillian Peele. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
The Next COTF Editor Nominated Topic
Hey! I was just reminding you that a new round of WP:UNI/COTF will start this Friday. Please feel free to nominate the next Editor Nominated Topic by this Thursday on the WP:UNI/COTF#Nominations page. Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 03:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Coningsby Club
Hi - just noticed your interest (if that's not too weak a word) in Conservative politics and wondered if you'd be able to add a well-sourced article on the Coningsby Club? I tried to stop the existing stub getting deleted a couple of weeks ago, but in vain (and being a LibDem myself, and a historian of the 16th rather than the 20th century, I wasn't sure where to go for reliable sources that would demonstrate notability). Or perhaps you think it isn't really that notable anyway? (I'd be happier with the assessment coming from someone who knows, rather than from an American undergrad who doesn't even know what a dining club is). --Paularblaster (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
A new round of WP:UNI/COTF will start at midnight!
| The current University Collaborations of the Month are Ohio State University & Princess Nora bint Abdul Rahman University |
| |
|
Every month two B-, C- or Start-Class higher education-related articles are chosen for you to improve. Be bold! | ||
The new WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Fortnight has been set and a new round will start on Dec 21 2007 and will last through New Years until Jan 03 2008. This will give our fellow editors time to celebrate as well as focus on getting Harvard University up to GAN/FAR.
Please express your opinions, problems, hardships, challenges, comments, questions, or other words of wisdom regarding this COTF to the COTF talk page's COTF 2 Talk Topics.
Happy Holidays and Happy Editing!
- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
British English
Please help me improve the precision and nuance of my English language skills. To be quite clear, I'm not questioning your edit of an introductory paragraph in an article about a British academic. Rather, I'm wanting to make myself better informed so that I'm less likely to make the same subtle mis-step in future. Perhaps you will recall editing
- Timon Screech is a British academic. He is a member of staff at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.
I hope it's an easy question to address -- but I obviously don't quite appreciate the preference choice of "staff" over "faculty" in this SOAS setting. I'd appreciate it if you'd elucidate, if you have the time and inclination. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- The term "faculty" is hardly ever used in the UK to mean "academic staff" (on the rare occasions it is, it's almost always with an eye to US consumption). In the UK a "faculty" is one of the main academic divisions of an institution - e.g. "Faculty of Humanities", "Faculty of Social Science" etc... Using it for the staff is highly confusing. Hope that helps. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Something which may interest you
WP:UNIONISMTraditional unionist (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. As I've created WP templates before I've got going on making that one workable. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
assemsent stats
look a bit off to me......Traditional unionist (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes this is a temporary thing until the assessment stat bot updates the table. It will get corrected automatically so don't worry about it for now. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- grand. well done on all the work!Traditional unionist (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Kylie's OBE
Kylie is an Australian national. Australia is part of the British Commonwealth and therefore all commonwealth nations are eligible to receive the Queen's Honours - as she is their head of state. Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7163660.stm for confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.127.44 (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that honours made on the recommendation of the British government (which is what an OBE is) are no longer given to Australian nationals, as per the request of the latter's government some years ago. Instead they're given Australian honours. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue IV (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Station interchange
Regarding interchange at Forest Gate/Wanstead Park and Woodgrange Park/Manor Park. The former is suggested in the National Rail Timetable, the latter is not. As to whether it's "permitted" or not, the "authoritative" document on this topic (the National Routeing Guide) doesn't seem to include either in "permitted routes" - but then it's very poorly written and doesn't account for a lot of completely legitimate things. And it suggests you can travel to Southend to get from the GOBLIN to Stratford, which I might have to try. --Mr Thant (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I should also mention that the Online Journey Planner will happily suggest the Forest Gate/Wanstead Park change. The OJP is generally treated by staff as authoritative due to the Routeing Guide being nonsense, though officially it has no authority (officially they're meant to be exactly the same, which is also nonsense) --Mr Thant (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- IIRC some of the late evening C2C services divert from the normal route into Fenchurch Street after Barking to run via the GOBLIN as far as the connection near Forest Gate/Wanstead Park and then over the "one" route into Liverpool Street - is that what it could be referring to?
- With the recent launch of London Overground a lot of maps and announcements have been updated but nothing I've seen has even hinted that Forest Gate/Wanstead Park is now an official interchange. What other "completely legitimate things" aren't accounted for?
- Unfortunately ticket checks at both stations are rare (and when they are at FG it's at peak hours - hardly the time to be asking about legitimate interchanges, especially as I use a travelcard rendering the point academic) and I don't think the barriers at either Stratford or Barking are set to read whether the ticket has also gone through the Jubilee line barriers at Stratford even if interchanging at West Ham is the only legitimate (daytime) route between the two stations. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got the Southend example wrong - it's a Walthamstow (and various nearby stations) to Romford (and various nearby stations) that I think is valid via Southend. The intended route appears to be Walthamstow QR-Barking-Stratford (on c2c)-Romford, but because of the way the maps are drawn it also allows you to go to Southend and back.
- Forest Gate/Wanstead Park was listed before the LO changeover, it's nothing new. The anomalies and ambiguities in the Routeing Guide are too numerous to mention - Google will throw up lots. --Mr Thant (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year
 |
Happy New Year, Timrollpickering/Archive 6. |
- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello there
I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.
At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars
If you are interested by all means feel free to join
Regards
Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
A new round of Collaboration of the Fortnight is about to begin!
| The current University Collaborations of the Month are Ohio State University & Princess Nora bint Abdul Rahman University |
| |
|
Every month two B-, C- or Start-Class higher education-related articles are chosen for you to improve. Be bold! | ||
Yes, it's that time again. New articles have been added. I finished this process early because I'll be running around packing and sorting out Friday's weather patterns so I can get back to Florida in time. Just in case things don't go well, at least I don't sabotage the COTF program. Anyways, the three new articles will start on Friday and you may edit the three technically still in COTF (although I've placed the collaboration-past tags already) or you may start editing early.
Here's something I want to try, start treating it as a peer review. Start by skimming through the article, making sure the article fits our article guidelines. Then review for content: any copyvio, notability issues, reference listings, following the Manual of Style.
And here's something even more radical. See if you can attract authors currently maintaining the different COTF articles to join our WikiProject and better yet, our COTF project. I found when I started this program, jumping ships and editing other universities' articles was a big leap, but it's been very fun so far. I'd like to see more people actively participating.
Let's start off the new year the right way. I want to see those articles in GAR and FAN soon. I was sad we didn't have enough people working on the Harvard article to push it to FA or GA. But no matter, let's start fresh and begin! Hope everyone had a good holiday vacation (and if you didn't get a vacation, I hope you got a lot of double time). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 10:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.