User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 8
 | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
- 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.
WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008
|
The Space-Time Telegraph |
| ||||
| The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter | ||||||
| Issue 1 | March 2008 | |||||
For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | ||||||
No content in Category:Unionism rated articles with comments
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Unionism rated articles with comments, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008)
The April 2008 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! —Delivered on 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)
Ramsay Muir
You suggested the amalgamation of the two pages which deal with Ramsay Muir. I put up the second article, which now incorporates the information from the first. Unfortunately I do not know how to merge the two articles. Any advice would be welcome.
You can contact me direct on gjl29549@aol.co.uk
Graham Lippiatt Graham Lippiatt (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have been notcied by Iain Dale, and a number of IPs and SPAs are questioning your process. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Are you and Iain mates Tim? Was this a little amusement post-election day? Hope the champagne hasn't gone to your heads too much! :-) 81.149.153.146 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Albert Walmsley
Hello, wonder if you could help with NI Senator Albert Walmsley. I have his autobiography somewhere (It was like this your honour...) presuming he's the same person as Judge Walmsley! I'm quite certain he is, but cannot find the book. I was wondering if you knew of any resources which may be of help. Thanks, Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
GE
I was about to find someone to ask Darrenhusted (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant query
Forgive an irrelevant query. I read on somebody's blog (Liberal Democrat Vocie) that you wrote, 'For the record I am not a public school old boy (and very proud of that fact)' (22 July 2007). Yet you seem to have been educated at two famous public schools, Radley and City of London. Do you mean you did not attend a public school as defined by the Public Schools Acts? That is a perverse way of defining public school. Indeed, however you define public school, it is perverse if it excludes the schools you attended. I am confused. Please do explain! Alex--195.194.143.91 (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- The City of London School is not a public school by the correct sense by any stretch of the imagination and is not one of the twenty-five (as listed in the Yearbook, the main canonical list), whatever the 1886 case may have said. And because of the circumstances of my very brief time at and departure from Radley I am not an Old Radleian (and the Radleian Society would no doubt confirm that) - thus not a public school old boy. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's very interesting. I always thought that a public school was one whose head master was a member of the HMC, which would include City of London. And what of the Blake vs City of London judgement, quoted in Wikipedia, in which a Divisional Court decided that it was a public school? The Yearbook also excludes The King's School, Canterbury, which is the oldest public school in the country and is by anyone's definition a public school. It does seem a little odd for you to be so proud of not having been to public school (as narrowly defined by you) when you went to a prestigious independent HMC boys' day school. To the vast majority of British people who went to comprehensive schools the distinction of whether your school is listed in the Yearbook is a nice one indeed.--195.194.143.91 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- HMC membership is irrelevant really as it stretches beyond, and the court case is over a century old. The Yearbook is the clearest canonical listing for what would otherwise be an even more confused area. "Public school" is about various traditions, values and attitudes fostered by the school. CLS does not promote the specific public school values and traditions. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Burma
Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added you along with added 18 other users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Deamon138 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
- I've started a new page for structured mediation if you're interested. BigBlueFish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Just letting you know that your semi-move-protection of Scotland won't accomplish anything as non-autoconfirmed users can't move pages anyway. You might have meant to fully-protect it. I'll leave it to you to correct if necessary. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Project Fanboy
Hi, I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me with an article I'm working on for the comic book website Project Fanboy
I've created the article here on my sandbox and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to give it a look and let me know what you think. (whether the site is notable enough for an article or not yet) All the best, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You seem like a sensible person and you have an interest in universities so I thought you may be interested in this page. I placed a message on the talk page a while ago raising doubts as to the suitability of the article. I later placed a notability tag on the article. The original creator of the article has now removed that tag having made the most minor of alterations to the article. I don't know much about the procedures of Wikipedia, but I have a feeling one is not supposed just to remove notability tags one doesn't like without making a significant change to the material or making a case on the talk page or, best of all, gaining the consensus of other users that the tag was placed in an error of judgement. It seems to me that this user just wants to edit the page without any responsibility to the wider Wikipedia community.
As I said on the talk page of the article, I do not think that it is appropriate to have an article for every student organisation or campaign at every university. Some such organisations are definitely worthy of an article (the Oxford Union, for example, is obviously sufficiently notable), but I doubt whether this is one of them. I'd appreciate your view on it.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like just another student society, by whatever name, and the general default is that individual societies at individual universities are not notable unless proven otherwise. As such it should go up for AFD. I'll put a nomination in. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing thankless tasks
When you have time, could you please move the talk page for Fraternities and sororities? It still reflects the old title.
Thanks for taking the time to sort through and repair this tedious mess. It can't have been very much fun. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Fraternities
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboardP22575R15 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London
Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008
Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map
More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12
Hello,
I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.
If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.
The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!
Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!
CUSU LGBT Anonymous users
Forgive me if this comment is inappropriate, but my suspicions have been raised by finding that both of the Keeps on the CUSU LGBT AFD page are from unregistered users using IP addresses locating them in the Montanuniversität Leoben. It strikes me as rather surprising that of the eight people who have commented on the discussion two are from the same university in Austria. You might expect a number of contributions from users from Cambridge, or from the United Kingdom more generally, but I had never heard of the Montanuniversität Leoben until today and now two of its members are interested in CUSU LGBT, and both saying much the same thing. I find this a little hard to believe.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Most closing admins will note when the main Keep voices come from anonymous or suspected single purpose accounts, particularly if the anon's have very close ISPs. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Invitation
Introducing WikiProject United States Government...
| |||
.svg)
|
Hello Timrollpickering,
Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief. Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying. Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
|
Help us get the project off the ground and flying. |
|
Left Right Politics in the UK
Hi there, I'm trying to sort out the Right/Left descriptions on the page List of political parties in the United Kingdom and seem to have come across some opposition. Please allow me to explain...
I think this is largely due to the illusion that the centre ground of British politics is static: It's not! Even over the last 30 years, a huge sweep to the right has occured, first with Thatcher pulling the Tories right, then New Labour abandoning socialism and shifting their policies in line with the old Tory ones, then the LibDems slowly drifting after them, until there is really very little difference between them all on an economic scale.
However, because the general population has also accepted the new right-wing thinking, Labour are still viewed subjectively as 'a little bit left of what people think' and the Tories as 'a little bit right of what people think'.
Using measures like this that are in a constant state of flux is misleading, unscientific, and opposed to the principles of neutrality. We've put ourselves in the position of the blind leading the blind and it's very hard (on wikipedia) to make people realise that their traditional views of left and right are biased towards current trends.
Neither long-standing nor consensus is a subtitute for neutral, scientific, and objective POV (The world is flat is the traditional example I believe)
Asha28 (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Master of Arts (Oxbridge and Dublin)
Hi Timrollpickering. Thanks a lot for putting the MA Oxbridge article right. I'm not quite sure how I managed to do that - I really should look more carefully before I jump in and edit. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PM of UK
Hi Tim. I've noticed that you often comment on stuff to do with the UK constitution and politics. Someone is currently doing quite a major edit of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article: I think this is a worthy thing to do but am keen that it gets a proper review. Would you care to take a look? Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
King's College London
Can I ask why you restored the RADA alumni section to this article please? I go to King's and can safely say that RADA alumni are certainly not considered to be, nor do they consider themselves King's alumni. The notable alumni section on the KCL website only includes those who studied at King's, or at one of the several institutions to have subsequently merged with King's. 79.75.242.170 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note that I have removed this section from the article once more, and provided an explanation on the talk page. I hope this is sufficient. 79.75.242.170 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Such a change should be explained by rather more than an edit summary saying "i dont think" when such inclusions are not consistent across the board. Hence the restoration until an explanation was given. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Nature of graduation ceremonies
I have just read the discussion on the Open University talk page about the nature of Open University graduation ceremonies. Since it is rather an old debate I thought I'd send you this message and then copy it to the page, otherwise it probably wouldn't be read. I think that the University of London must confer degrees in a similar way. I have here my certificate from the University of Lonon, which reads
N, having completed the approved course of study and passed the examination has this day been admitted by The School of Oriental and African Studies to the University of London Degree of Master of Arts with Distinction in [Subject] [signed] Director and Principal, The School of Oriental and African Studies [and] Vice-Chancellor 1 December 2006 [The Seal of the University of London]
By 1 December 2006 I did not even have my results and received this certificate long after the degree was conferred. Then only on 29 July of the following year was there a graduation ceremony (which I did not attend). Surely my degree was actually conferred, retrospectively, when the seal of the University was applied to the certificate. The ceremony was, I think, just for show. On the other hand I have from Oxford a certificate thus:
This is to certify that N [College] satisfied the Examiners in the Final Honour School of [School] on [date] and was placed by them in [class] and, having satisfied all the conditions prescribed by the Statutes of the University, was on 23 October 2004 admitted to the Degree of [DEGREE] University Offices, Oxford. 24 January 2008 [signed] Registrar [sealed]
23 October was the date of the ceremony.
Also interesting is the the name of my degree from Oxford is just 'Bachelor of Arts', with no mention of the subject or class (which is reflected in the programme for the ceremony) whereas I think my University of London degree is actually 'Master of Arts with Distinction in [Subject]'. It will be interesting to see what happens if I try to graduate with an MA in another subject from the University of London. At Oxford it would be absolutely impossible - when you have been admitted to the degree of, say, Bachelor of Arts, if you take another Final Honour School you cannot enter the degree for a second time.
cc. Savirr.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's convoluted because I have a suspicion that a lot of universities themselves are nowadays unaware of the historic rationale behind the arrangements, some of which is still preserved in the wording used and so forth. Most universities treat degrees as qualifications and even statutes & ordinances don't make reference to the earlier concept of ranks of membership of the university beyond being "admitted" to it. Then the terminology becomes detached and the naming of degrees bears no resemblance to the actual organisational structure. (For instance the idea that I hold the rank of "Master" in "the Faculty of Arts" at Kent is hard to grasp when Kent has never in its history had anything called "the Faculty of Arts" and has granted BA & MA degrees in all faculties.) Nearly all universities will have a formal mechanism to approve the list of people to be awarded degrees, in practice either the Senate or a sub-committee that primarily just rubber stamps the lists supplied by the departments and faculties and honorary degrees committee (but can come to life in the event of procedural irregularity or if the proposed honorary degree recipient is controversial). But beyond that where the actual power to exercise the degree awarding powers is formally operated isn't always clear to those outside and in turn this effects how the graduation ceremony operates. Furthermore in practice whether or not someone formally holds the degree or is still waiting for it to be conferred makes little difference - a postgraduate programme will allow them immediate entry either way, employers will still take them on and so forth, whilst very few universities have a formal role for their graduates in the university administration that would require clarity on who can and can't vote yet.
- The degree certificates themselves vary considerably between institutions and again shouldn't be strictly necessary. So each institution makes up its own mind about what to put on them or even whether to automatically distribute them at all. I don't think applying the seal of a university to a certificate has any effect beyond providing proof of authenticity.
- At Kent the graduands for a particular degree are formally presented to the Chancellor in procession on the stage. They then walk down the aisle and are given their degree certificate en route. Then the Chancellor says at the ceremony "By virtue of the authority invested in me, I admit these persons to the degree of [Something] of [Something]." (There's also the question of graduands wearing the academic dress of the degree before they've received it, but in nearly all universities the practicalities of not having to hire two sets of robes and change mid ceremony, plus getting the official photos taken beforehand, win out over technicalities.) So for anything up to twenty minutes between the first to be presented and the Chancellor formally conferring, a graduand can have received everything saying they have the degree without yet formally having it.
- In terms of whether you could get a second MA from London, I think the answer would almost certainly be "yes" on the basis of it being a qualification, unless someone on the relevant committee was thinking in the old terms of "admission to membership rank". Timrollpickering (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting... I do like a little conundrum like this to divert me from my proper work! In the case of Kent you seem to have pretty certain information that the actual admission to the degree occurs when the Chancellor says that he is admitting those persons etc. I also think that in the case of my MA it is quite certain from the certificate that the person named (me) 'has this day been admitted' to the degree. As I didn't go to the ceremony I'm not sure what happened at it. However, I do have the programme and it says that there is 'Presentation of graduates who have obtained Taught Masters Degrees' by the dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities. So the people being presented are already graduates and have already obtained their degrees.
- Maybe the crucial thing is to ask what happens to people who, like me, don't turn up for their degrees. When I got my BA in absentia at Oxford I know (from having read the programme and the relevant parts of the website) that at the end the Vice-Chancellor says that he is admitting to their degrees those persons who supplicated in absentia. Without that part I still wouldn't have my degree, whereas I don't think that it was necessary at SOAS (though my name is in the programme, so maybe...) Assuming I can go to another London MA ceremony I'll se what happens - I feel I ought to go to one, having cheated my mother out of two graduations already!
- As far as I know Oxford is the only university where one changes outfit during the ceremony. I believe Cambridge has an odd compromise where you wear your old gown with your new hood.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about drawing conclusions just from the "graduates who have obtained" bit of the SOAS programme because it may well have been written by someone unaware of the exact details of what's going on or who thinks passing the actual course is "obtaining" (or who just doesn't want to confuse people by using "graduands" and "graduates" in different places). I happen to have the Kent November 2006 programme to hand and from memory much of it uses the same text from 2001 & 2002. The very first piece of information about the ceremony (after the timings) defines "graduands" as "students who are due to have a degree conferred upon them" and "graduates" as these people "once a degree has been conferred". The terminology used in the rest of the programme is quite precise on this throughout, aside from using "graduate" in the description of the dress (which is strictly for graduates anyway but nobody minds on the day). Having glanced through the ordinances in the past for other stuff they seem reasonably clear that this is what happened, and both certificates have the ceremony date on them (in fact I think they may even say the degree was conferred at the ceremony but they're not to hand). At the ceremony graduands are presented, with those present parading and those who graduate "in absentia" are also presented, though their names are not actually read out, merely referred to the list presented in the programme.
- Oh and I think St Andrews is another university with a change - they have a practice of placing the hood on the student on the stage itself (which may formally signify the awarding of the degree). I've heard that "hooding" is more common in US universities, though in recent years most are abandoning the practice for Bachelors who just parade in the gown with no hood. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- If you're still curious about this, I went to a Goldsmiths graduation. The Chairman of the College Council did refer to "graduands" but when it came to the formal part of the ceremony they said that persons were being presented who had been admitted to the degree of X. They didn't say anything like, "By my own authority and the authority of the whole university I admit these persons to their degrees". The PhDs did kneel on a faldstool the have the hood put on, but the words spoken were just a congratulation on being having been admitted to the degree. On the other hand, the Honorary Fellow was actually admitted to the fellowship in the course of the ceremony: the Chairman said something like, "By the authority vested in me I admit you to the fellowship of this college". But as you say, there's no guarantee that the people who wrote the ceremony have done so very pedantically. It probably just matters to most that the degree has been conferred at some point and that there's a nice occasion to mark it. At what point the candidate actually becomes a doctor of philosophy, or whatever, probably doesn't matter.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:05, 3 September 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.