User talk:Wotnow

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


Hello, Wotnow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Goon Show audio clip[edit]

Hi, sorry for not replying to the previous message. I have a bad habit for getting distracted and totally forgetting to reply. Anyway, I'm afraid that clip you have uploaded is much too long for fair use. IIRC, you can't go beyond 30 seconds or 10% of the total length of the source, whichever is shorter.--Drat (Talk) 09:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Drat, although I don't thinks the numbers are more than guidelines. For example the poem "Blod" is usually quotes in it's entirety since it is the single word "blod" - even taken with it's title a total of 8 letters means that it is impossible to quote 10%. And indeed it is generally recognised that fair use can include the whole of a very short work, such as a haiku or limerick, or, doubtless, substantially the whole of a longer work when line by line analysis is going to result in the quotation of the entire piece, albeit not in a single chunk. Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

Hi again Rich. Thanks for replying so promptly. I see your point, and that of Drat's. I have now managed to reduce the audio clip to minimum requirements, and uploaded that to Last Goon Show of All. I've also utilised the audio file template from the All Along The Watchtower example cited on the Wikipedia:Music_samples page. There remains now the issue of the duplicate audio file page, and the merging of it with the updated one. Your thoughts? Wotnow (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Also, Drat. Thanks for your replies and patience. As above to Rich, I see your point. I have now managed to reduce the audio clip to minimum requirements, and uploaded that to Last Goon Show of All, where I also deleted my sentence that bordered on analysis - re missing 12 minutes. See also my comments to Rich above. Wotnow (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK so I just delete File:Last Goon Show of All - Omitted lead-up to margarine-lump punchline.ogg - and the two long versions of the other file(done).I would say, and we are done? Rich Farmbrough, 07:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 08:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

With the feedback and kind cooperation of yourself (and the initial feedback from Drat), the problem regarding the Last Goon show of All clip appears resolved. I commend you both.Wotnow (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Brachial plexus lesion and injury articles ready to merge[edit]

In answer to Joscon, I'm not aware of any specific time-frame other than the act of being reasonable. So if there is much discussion to be had, this should be allowed. If on the other hand, there appears not to be a demand for discussion, and/or if the opportunity presents itself to do a merge before moving on to further article improvements, I would think the idea would be to proceed forthwith.

I have now updated both this Brachial plexus lesion article, and the Brachial plexus injury article so that they are identical apart from the article name. This should make it easy to merge. The only question will be which article is merged into which. I would suggest that the answer to that is whichever term is used most commonly. I have the impression from this exercise that perhaps the term 'injury' is used more commonly than 'lesion'. I note too that the ICD system uses the term injury. Obviously, the article can still be improved upon. However, it may be prudent to do a merge sooner rather than later, while the text in both is identical.Wotnow (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Merge completed[edit]

I reviewed the Help: merging article, and saw that for uncontroversial mergers, it is okay to be bold and simply do it. Since the merge proposal had generated little discussion, and no controversy, I thought I might as well do the merge once I had the text in both articles identical. In the end, none of the content from the lesion article was lost, and indeed it contributed to the injury article. As noted above, it seemed to me from the exercise leading up to the merger, that the term brachial plexus injury is used more often than brachial plexus lesion, especially perhaps by lay-people, but also taking into account the ICD use. I therefore kept the 'injury' title. If it transpires that the term should be changed (which at this stage I doubt), I daresay it's a straightforward enough process to do that. I hope this was of some help. To User: Josconklin I thank you for your comment regarding the merge (that you concurred with my comments, and the question was how long to wait) which helped convince me that I should go ahead with the merge while the opportunity presented itself - i.e. before we had two articles covering the same topic with large amounts of information to reconcile.Wotnow (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Orphaned non-free image (File:A Dustbin of Milligan.jpg)[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:A Dustbin of Milligan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A Dustbin of Milligan now linked to article.[edit]

Hello Skier Dude. I saw your comment re lack of linking of the A Dustbin of Milligan.jpg to an article. Thank you for your prompt.

I have now linked it to the article where I originally intended. I grew up with Milligan's humour, and know it very well. The book is a good representation of his earlier work, and since I happen to have the book, I may get around to creating an article on the it. However, if I don't, at least there is a lead for someone else to follow-up on.Wotnow (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow.

Thanks - templates updated on image now. Skier Dude (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

File reduced - see what you think[edit]

Hi again Skier Dude, and thanks for bearing with me. I have now reduced the image size for A Dusbin of Milligan. I hope this suffices, but would welcome your comments on the matter.Wotnow (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

I dropped it down to 400x on the longest side - another admin will take care of the follow-up after the mandatory waiting period. Skier Dude (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fire sale! All items reduced[edit]

Thanks again Skier Dude, for both your input and help with the Dusbin of Milligan image. I have now reduced the image for The Bed-Sitting Room, and updated the tag. With all these reductions we could have a fire sale - "All items reduced!". I always wonder about those "20% off" sales - I keep looking for which 20% is missing. Anyway, thanks again, and I trust the Bed-Sitting Room image is satisfactory.Wotnow (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Both look fine! Skier Dude (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected standing and height reductions[edit]

Like the sailor with the wooden leg, I stand corrected. I overlooked the Bed-Sitting Room cast, but have now reduced the height (and will avoid bad jokes like platform shoes etc). I trust that does it, and thanks again for your input and help.Wotnow (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Water cure (therapy) disambiguation from Water cure (torture)[edit]

Regarding discussion on the above issue as found at the Talk: Water cure (therapy) page, I make the following observations and suggestions, copied verbatim from my comment there.

Firstly, the definition of Water Cure, as used in that article is misleading. Not because it is wrong. But because it is incomplete.

The first citation in the Water cure article refers to the Oxford English Dictionary, although no further referencing details are given. As readers will be aware, there are several versions of this dictionary, with the most complete being the multi-volume edition typically found only in libraries, to various abridged versions which are more commonly available (and affordable). The two-volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed., 2007) lists the definition for water-cure on page 3586, under the general listing for water (noun), alphabetically in the sub-listing for phrases. It states:

"Water-cure (a) a course of medical treatment by hydrotherapy; (b) a form of torture in which a person is forced to drink large quantities of water".

Thus, there are two primary uses of water: For therapy, and for torture. And thus, two primary definitions in relation to the the topic of discussion.

I would suggest that this gives us the basis for a solution, which is similar to that proposed by Kudpung (talk), with the exception that Water cure (therapy) remains as is, since the title already captures one of the two primary definitions. Thus:

Water cure to Water Cure (torture)
Water cure (therapy) remains as Water Cure (therapy)

This also makes the task easier in the first place. All we need to do is rename the Water cure article. By doing so, we (a) give the reader the two primary definitions, while (b) keeping with the original intentions of the article as being one about the use of water as a form of torture. I hope this is of some help. Wotnow (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Water therapy redirection[edit]

Regarding the suggestion on Talk: Water therapy that the article Water therapy be redirected, I agree. While the article's history is intriguing, the article itself is extremely brief, extremely narrow in scope (certainly not covering the broad category of water therapy) and contains no sources. Its sole merit is that it contains a caveat to mindless drinking of copious amounts of water - i.e. that water intoxication can and does occur.

Its use then, is as a caveat section in a larger article, which is what I propose to do with it. Wotnow (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Stealing Milligan[edit]

Feel free to remove this comment ... but I just read your comment on Spike Milligan talk page. I had three Milligan books stolen -- by the piano movers! I didn't want to turn them in, but ... how low can you get? And in my hardback of "Adolf Hitler" someone sold the book, after cutting out half the title page ... where apparently he signed. What kinds of people do this?? Why not steal from a church or beat up an old lady? Grumble, grumble. Lol. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alpha Ralpha Boulevard. A belated reply to your post on my talk page regarding the theft of Milligan books. A moving story. The things people do from need or greed are unfortunate indeed. One consolation is that most of his books are still available, whereas some of his records, including Unspun Socks from a Chicken's Laundry, are as rare as hen's teeth. I guess the reason the folks to whom you refer didn't steal from a church or beat up an old lady would be that:
  1. Milligan's books are not commonly available in churches. Not even his version of the Bible, for some unknown reason.
  2. Beating up old ladies with pianos is hard work.
I hope this was of some help. Failing that, keep taking the tablets, and call me in the morning. Or if you die in the meantime, call me in the mourning. Wotnow (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Water Cure (torture)[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Water Cure (torture), and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard the above; it was left by a bot. The site allegedly copied from is a Wikipedia mirror. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks I checked the link myself and was amused to find it taking me straight back to the very Wikipedia article I was working on!Wotnow (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow
Note that the warning was due to the fact that you tried to disambiguate by performing a cut & paste move, which separated the article from its contributor history for no good reason. A simple use of the movecommand would have served your purpose equally well with less efforts :) I have performed a history merge to re-join the history with the article and created a proper disambiguation page at Water cure.
If a similar case ever presents itself, please try to avoid copy / pasting entire articles under a new title in favour of using "Move", as the former may lead to the loss of the contribution history if the original page gets deleted, a loss that would constitute a violation of the copyrights of all contributors to the article. If in doubt, you can also ask for assistance at WP:Requested moves.
Best, MLauba (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Found a 'how to page' related to above discussion. Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Wotnow (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Water Cure (torture) move[edit]

This section, and the sub-section below, are copied and pasted verbatim from my response on the discussion page of MLauba (talk). It is placed here for completion, and for ease of following the discussion, with all relevant discussion in the one place.Wotnow (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Thanks for your correction of my erroneous methods in disambiguating Water Cure (torture) from Water cure (therapy), and your message on the same. In full accordance with Murphy's Law, after completing the merge, I did actually come across info about the Move process while reading around to see if there was anything else I needed to do to in relation to the move. "Eh? What?", I thought to myself, "so that's what the 'Move' tab can be used for". It certainly did look to be an easier process, and I rather wish I'd kept exploring beforehand. In my attempts to balance the trade-off between reading around and getting things done, I got that one wrong, and I thank you for your correction of it, and your message.

I did consider creating a disambiguation page, and I think it was in reading around on that process that I came across the relevant material on the 'Move' process. I didn't know if I could justify creating a disambiguation page, even though I know that readers would benefit, since most searches on 'Water Cure' are indeed prompted by interest in the therapeutic aspect. It seems almost impossible not to stumble on the 'water cure' term in readings on health from almost any direction - medical, 'alternative medicine', anthropology, sociology, history, etc, whereas in years of reading around, my first ever encounter with the torture definition was via the Wikipedia article.

So thanks again for your efforts at both correction and education. Nice work.Wotnow (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Water cure (therapy) future merge into Hydrotherapy[edit]

I remember now one reason I held off on creating the disambiguation page for Water cure. The Water cure (therapy) article is very impoverished, and I realised at the outset that after taking care of the confusion over 'Water Cure', sorting out the Water cure (therapy) article would logically follow.

The likely outcome of such attention would be a merge of the 'Water cure (therapy)' article into the Hydrotherapy article, since they are essentially one and the same. Water cure as a term has long been interchangeable with 'hydropathy', the earlier term for hydrotherpay, with both water cure and hydropathy becoming more historical terms as time went on. So any attempt to develop the 'Water cure (therapy)' article will inevitably result in two articles [hydrotherapy and 'Water cure (therapy)'] on the same topic.

I knew this from the outset, when I first proposed the solution to the confusion over 'Water Cure' - i.e. start with the definition and go from there. But the torture versus therapy issue was primary (you can't have readers genuinely seeking information, and getting railroaded into one particular viewpoint just because that article got the drop on another article - that's not education, that's marketing, and sometimes worse), and indeed was clouding the 'Water cure (therapy)' = 'Hydrotherapy' issue.

I also knew that the Hydrotherapy article needed improvement. And it struck me that it would probably be better to improve the Hydrotherapy article before picking up on any proposal to merge the Water cure (therapy) article into the Hydrotherapy article.

One question that arises in relation to any future merge of the 'Water cure (therapy)' article into the Hydrotherapy article, is what would happen to the disambiguation page. In my view, there would still be a need for disambiguation, since searchers are still going to look up the term 'water cure', mostly - but doubtless not exclusively - expecting to find something on therapy.Wotnow (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Merge need not negate disambiguation page[edit]

A brief update, for I have no desire to give the impression of wanting to occupy your entire attenton, nor generate a talkfest.

I have just realised that any merge of Water cure (therapy) into Hydrotherapy need not negate the disambiguation page (I have already outlined above why it wouldn't negate the need for disambiguation, but that still left the question of the page). It would just be a matter of bolding the term Water cure (therapy), de-linking it. Since the link to Hydrotherapy is already in the sentence, the sentence itself doesn't even need to change, as an interested reader will most certainly click on the link. So on thinking it through, I've raised a non-issue, for which I apologise. But at least the process of thinking it through is documented for the sake of other readers.Wotnow (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Water cures & therapy[edit]

Hi Wotnow. Thanks for all your hard work and input on these merge/redirect issues. I precipitated the whole thing when I was creating the article on Malvern Water, but never got round to doing it myself. --Kudpung (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Malvern Water article is pretty much as complete now as it ever needs to be. I was given a private VIP tour of the bottling factory when I was back home in Malvern in September, where I took many photos, and of wells and spouts in the area, but I haven't had time to update the article since returning to Thailand.--Kudpung (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Quakers and Water Cure[edit]

Thanks for you message. I am sorry that I do not know of any C19th Quakers, other than C. Gilpin, who were interested in this subject. Vernon White . . . Talk 20:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Malvern - GA nomination[edit]

Hi Wotnow ! Your work with Gyro and the others is excellent - have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Worcestershire ? We now have a first review for GA for the Malvern article. On the whole it doesn't look too bad. As you know, Gyro and I are local residents in absentia, and regular Wiki authors, but anything you can do to improve the language or address some of the more technical points and the other points made by the reviewer as quickly as possible would be much appreciated, particularly with your experience and contribs to the referencing system. It would be great for the Worcs project to have a GA of this envergure in its repertoire. See Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#GA Review - and Happy New Year!--Kudpung (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)--

Hi Wotnow! , while the work you guys are doing on the references is excellent, I would just like to point out the following:
How to format citations: While you should try to format a citation correctly, what matters is that you add your source; provide enough information to identify the source, and others will improve the formatting if needed.
How to present citations: Each article should use the same method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus before changing it.
This means that the high number of refs must be consistent - quite a mammoth task! I have added lots of new refs in the last day or two, but I don't know how to use your system (yet), as I am more concerned with supplying refs that are required by the GA reviewer. Perhaps you could look them over. You can locate them from the edit history.--Kudpung (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Kudpung. Its a privilege to be able to contribute. I'll help out as best I can, although I'm having to pull back from my Wikipedia input while I divert my time and effort elsewhere. The system isn't 'mine' as such. What I did was implement someone's suggestion, do my best to make it work, and show how I got there. However, you'll see from my dialogue that having done this, I have my doubts about the utility of the new referencing layout for this type of article. My own view is that the referencing layout used in Malvern Water article is simpler to implement and more suited to the Malvern, Worcestershire. In other words, it seems more optimal for the Malvern article, whereas the style we're currently trying to implement is more optimal for an article like William Shakespeare
However, it must be said that I was only able to come to that view after implementing the suggested layout. So it was a useful learning exercise, and the ensuing dialogue did get me to better clarify my observations, which itself is always useful (see the sub-heading Inline citations, editing citations, and referencing layouts). The reason I expressed my doubts early into the new referencing style, was that having realised the issues involved, I had a social responsibility to desribe them as best I could. Thus people could decide which way they'd like to go either early on, or after others have gotten a feel for the issues involved. That is, so people could make informed decisions and indeed perhaps come to a consensus.
You'll see also that I did get concerned that my expression of doubts might cause discouragement and stall the project. For this reason, I continued to implement the new referencing layout to demonstrate good faith, because discouraging others is not my style. So, having expressed my doubts, and clarified them as best I could, it was then a matter of seeing which direction the consensus would take: The Malvern Water style, or the Wakefield style. I still think the Malvern Water style is more optimal, but I see my role as contributing as best I can whichever direction the consensus goes. And part of that contribution is showing others how they can implement the style they indicate a preference for, insofar as I can figure it out.Wotnow (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, we've all had a go at the recommended improvements for GA. Would someone care to have a final proof read please? See comments on Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/GA1--Kudpung (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern - referencing style[edit]

Hi Wotnow, Happy New Year! Having seen your struggle with the tangled web of wiki referencing, I now think your initial feelings were correct, and that the Shakespeare-style refs are not needed for the Malvern article. Would you agree that we should switch back to the Malvern Water style refs? Sorry, I know you've put in lots of hard work here - I guess sometimes we need to try to find out what doesn't work! I think my main concern is that it's just too complicated for most editors to figure out, which can't be good for the maintainability of the article. What do you think? I know you're trying to cut back on wiki-time, so I don't mind making the edits, but I'd like to know your thoughts before I start. GyroMagician (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi GyroMagician. Greetings to you too for the New Year. I concur with your conclusion that the article would be easier to manage using a simpler referencing style, or layout. If we had lots of Smith-type references (or Schoenbaum-type refs, per the Shakespeare article), there would be some gain, from the Shakespeare style. But otherwise, we were building in a level of cumbersomeness with little return for the effort. I also agree that sometimes a bit of trial and error (which after all is just a form of experimentation) is needed to establish what works, what doesn't, and what makes no difference either way. So sure I had my doubts. But I could have been wrong. And if I was right, no harm would be done anyway. Indeed some new Wikibizzo tricks were learned from the exercise of trying to implement it.
I will, despite myself, continue to make forays into Wikipedia as I can. But the irony is that the very thing which prompted me to contribute in the first place - namely my rather large library - will most likely play a part in me pulling back, as I sort out what to do with it. There are other ironies in this. The article to which I've made the main contribution - Captain R.T. Claridge - was built almost entirely from references found on the internet, with only a handful of references from my library. Similarly for directly and indirectly related articles, as I tacked back and forth while building the Claridge article. I initially thought I might plough through my library and add citations to a range of articles, but while there might be a flurry of activity here and there, that doesn't look too likely now, unless I stumble on a way to achieve that and survive at the same time.Wotnow (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow
Hi. I think we have reached the point where all the reviewers original pints have been addressed. Apart from proof reading and correcting any glaring errors, let's try to achiev GA with the article as is. see the revierwers latest comment at Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1#Next_set_of_comments. If you need any help understanding referencing policy, don't hesitate to check out these sections:
Merging of Malvern Link and Malvern urban district councils. Although I am a Malvernian of some years, and with a great interest in its history, I did not know about this merger until I started searching for material to expand the Malvern article in mid 2009. I could not possibly have put this info in if I hadn't found a source for it. It may have been in Hembry. I can't remember. There would not neccessary have been and Act of Parliament for this, it could happen at local or county level. The irony is, that this mention might not even strictly require a reference. BY referencing things in the Wikipedia that might not strictly need referencing , we are committing ourselves to either providing a verifiable reference, or cutting out the reference, or cutting the material out. At this stage, if we can't find the reference, we'll just have to cut it out. However, the effort at the moment is to comply with the reviewer's recommendations. --Kudpung (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I've now added yet another a bunch of new references. It's taken me all day to find them, but it would be great if you could put them into your special system. I was right about Hembry, simply because I read the book. ;). --Kudpung (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I see your additions. I'm impressed. Yes, it can take a bit of time. It took a few hours to reformat the refs, but I figured that if I did that, it would free up time of Malvernites to utilise their implicit knowledge. For example, while I did do a Google search re the 1900 merger, I was unsuccessful in the time allocated to the task, achieving only a computer freeze when I visited one historical site. I figured either whoever wrote about that would have spotted it somewhere, and may be more successful than me, with a better idea where to look. Or alternatively, someone with knowledge of Malvern would have a more efficient search heuristic than me. I've now formatted the Hembry Cowie & Cowie ref (1997), and semi-formatted the Young (1991) ref - but it'll pass muster.Wotnow (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow
Gyro has suggested I've now been over referncing, so I've cut back on some of the items again that had double or triple refs - HOWEVER, this has left a bunch of ugly red warnings on the front page that I don't know how to fix. usually when I delete an inline ref, it's simply gone for good. URGENT fix please, if you can.--Kudpung (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. I've just deleted a whole bunch of over references on Gyro's advice, but I found it extremely difficult but it looks as if I've fixed it. For the moment, I really fail to see how that template system of yours & Gyros for making citations saves any time - if anything it appears to quadruple it. It's now 02.45 am here, and I'm going to bed before I get a divorce suit!--Kudpung (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We might have a little work to do convincing the troops it was a good idea, but I think the referencing effort is done. I've added a note to the talk page explaining how to use it - I guess we'll have to sit back and watch now. Anyway, I think it looks better, which is what really matters ;-) Thanks for all your help GyroMagician (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your hard work and helping clean up some of the mess I made. I might just come round to your way of thinking on the referencing system and will be experimenting in my sandbox. Please see:
Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Consensus
--Kudpung (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you give me a link to this Wikibizzo tool for automatically making the references? i can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference templates for the Chienlit innovation[edit]

The only templates that I am currently aware of are those created by GyroMagician at GyroMagician's neat trick on Malvern Water discussion page, and more recently GyroMagician's 'Howto' on Malvern discussion page, both of which have been copied by me at User:Wotnow. You'll see from my own userpage, and my comments on Malvern Water discussion page and elsewhere, that I credit my awareness of this referencing style to User:Chienlit's implementation in the Vincent Priessnitz article on 15 November 2009, after which I tried it myself. Whether Chienlit picked up elsewhere or worked it out I don't know. I see the earliest contribution from Chienlit using the {{r|"Ref Name"}} template was on 17 October 2009, in the Hubert Latham article.

But I see the {{reflist|2|refs= ... }} template was added to the Hubert Latham article by User:Autodidactyl on 14 October 2009. Where that editor got it from I don't know. At this stage, it looks a bit like an innovation that's been quietly evolving behind the scenes.

When referencing in an article, I commonly open two, three, or more internet windows. I typically pull up my own page so I can copy-and-paste the {{r|Thisbit}} inline in the article. Then I type whatever name I'm going to use in the lead <ref name="myRefName"> portion of the ref tags. Then I copy-and-paste that over the 'Thisbit'. That method, or variations thereof, ensures that I can see where I'm up to while editing, and if I still overlook something, I'll get a red flag when doing a preview. In my earliest Wikkibizzoing days, the red flags bothered me. I've since learned to see them as very handy.

It's fairly easy to implement the system when implementing new references from scratch. When amending referencing styles, I did find the need to keep track of myself, especially with large change-overs. But as I progressed, I realised it's easier than I thought. One can implement the change piecemeal, as I have done in the Shakespeare article, simply getting the longest references out of the body of the text. The old style - with the full references embedded in the article text - still shows up in the reference section. So one can implement the 'Chienlit innovation' (to give it a name) to the extent one finds it useful, whether total or partial. Or one can implement it in total, but a bit at a time. Very handy indeed.

So we have what we need for now by way of templates on three pages - which is easier than my first method of going into articles where it's been implemented, opening up an editing window, and pinching the formatting from there. Now that I, and GyroMagician in particular, have started to flesh out 'instructions' so that they make sense to us, it may be useful for us to create a couple of special user pages, and see how well we can flesh the template and instructions out, so that a complete novice can follow it. Having done that, a page could be added or submitted to the help-page collection. Unless of course someone else gets there first. But before getting that far, the trick is to implement it and keep debugging our techniques. If it's as useful as Gyro and I (and obviously some others) think it is, it will quietly catch on, and we'll have played our part. Wotnow (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

I do something similar. I can remember to type {{r|Thisbit}} inline, but I can never remember the citation templates, so I keep this page open in another tab, and copy/paste across into the actual <ref>{{Cite...}}</ref> part. There are tools out there to help citation formatting, but I've never found one I really liked, so I keep doing things by hand. GyroMagician (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Some hopefully helpful information[edit]

I have added a section to my user page, in which I provide what I hope are Illustrative examples of co-existing referencing styles in the process of editorial problem-solving. I hope it is of some help. As always, it was at least a useful learning exercise for me, as is usually the case when trying to formalise one's own learning into a way that hopefully makes some sense to others. Wotnow (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Awwww, shucks Face-blush.svg[edit]

Firstly I would like to say thank you to everybody that knows me, and I wouldn't be where I am today without all the support I received from those people who voted to give me this well deserved recognition. Cry.png .... Cry.png ... Cry.png. I have (truly) never been so flattered. Face-kiss.svg

Friends, we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. So I must make special mention of Maedin\talk, a beautiful, fresh faced, chirpy young admin (or possibly yet another 50 year old bloke masquerading) who saw a spark of potential in this lost soul and trained me in the art of {{r|..Face-glasses.svg..}.} Thank you Maedin. Thank you.

Actually I used trial and error after studying how Maedin did it. So, flattered as I am, I would happily vote for the 'Maedin innovation'. If you knew how many times I typed {r|.... and the hours I wasted searching, you would feel the 'Chienlit discontinuity' to be more appropriate.

ps. My biggest leap of faith was when I timorously attacked the huge/awful Archaeopteryx and was delighted to find that the scientific heavys accepted the improvements.

Regards Chienlit (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow,
I have not been able to make the 'Maedin innovation' work inside ==Notes=.= {{reflist|group=n}.}. Thus on Thomas Humber I resorted to putting them outside, which means that for the casual reader the ref is about a mile above the note. ( eg. <r.e.f group="n">The Stanley Cycle Club organised ....</r.e.f>{{r|NYT 7 Feb 1897}.}{{r|Graces}.}
Do you or GyroMagician et al know how to embed a MaedInnov inside the actual note? Regards Chienlit (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It was also 'Maedin who instructed Autodidactyl. She is the source/promoter of the innovation.
I use the option to display the article's section index on the edit screen, I find it easiest to write the whole thing 'inline' {{r|Chien}}<ref name="Chien" >[www.chien...]</ref>, then paste the stuff into references. Regards Chienlit (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The ==Notes== {{reflist|group=n}} function allows 'interesting asides', background, and 'semi-non sequiturs' to be contained in the article without breaking the reader's flow. I also use them for stuff that is probably the start of a new article, but not yet, a protolink. They are very useful for cleaning up articles without destroying facts. Regards Chienlit (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, thanks chaps, I didn't know I'd had something named after me! And my tints, too, how surreal! I owe my discovery of the clever reference formatting to the Wikipedia Signpost, which I almost never read, but which, by grace and good fortune, I happened to peek at in just the right week to see this new feature. As far as I know, some über-smart editors around here designed and pushed for the change, so they are far more worthy of mention than I, ;-) Though, really, MaedInnov is such a cool name! Maedin\talk 13:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wotnow, as far as I am concerned it all began here [1] Regards Chienlit (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Here you go, the three paragraphs that led me to it. It looks as though perhaps User:Dragons flight is your man. Having stumbled upon it in September, I went on a short re-referencing spree, mostly to the articles I've had at DYK. Au revoir, Maedin\talk 13:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for Thomas Humber. I think I have found an even neater format, it works exactly like the standard template but with the addition of group=Note in both the inline label and the ==Notes section header. Regards Chienlit (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC) (ps Your user page embarrassed/stimulated me into finishing Ernest Shackleton. It was a sod. Sisyphus had it easy.)


Wotnow, I don't object to your editing the Finnhorse article, but your citation format is not in line with the rest of the article, so could you kindly fix your cites so they are properly done? Thank you. You also do not put footnotes into the lead, per WP:MOS. In addition, the term "coldblood," though accurate, is often viewed as insulting in English use, implying coarse and slow horses, even if the equivalent term is used in other languages -- "light draught" covers the same basic type and is less apt to be viewed in a derogatory way. Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Follow up: I restored the Equus collection citation, correctly, and put it in some of the more obvious places where the wording is pretty similar to that in the article. It doesn't have to be included in every spot that has a citation already, unless the existing cite is incorrect. The other two cites appeared irrelevant save for their reference to the term "coldblood" used in passing. Montanabw(talk) 00:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


In this edit you undid an edit. In general you would be totally correct, but may I suggest that if you want to undo an edit where the edit summary uses the term "banned user" you should take a different approach. There are certain long-term abusers of Wikipedia where it has been agreed that the best strategy is to completely remove the work of their sockpuppets. I noticed the change and decided not to bother fixing it because it only involved a dab page: not a big deal and will be fixed in due course. However, if wanting to fix it, I would recommend just making the edit with a suitable summary ("fix dab") with no reference to what you are really doing (restoring the banned user's work). The edit in question is pretty inconsequential and the only reason I'm mentioning it is that many articles are being cleaned in a similar fashion, and you may encounter another case. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Despite reverting your edit, I was glad someone pays attention to these things. I thought how to handle it at the time (here's a banned editor and another person making a good faith reversion), so I had a quick glance at the banned editor's recent contributions. At a glance, they seemed in context, so I thought 'oh well, may as well reinforce constructive behaviour'.
I subsequently had a closer look at some of that editor's recent edits, and I get a sense of the concern. E.g. inserting sentences which appear to be about getting a viewpoint across rather than contributing to the article. Or inserting a sentence which in and of itself seems not unreasonable, but that breaks up the flow of and meaning of a paragraph, etc. On this last instance, I myself have 'The Third Culture'. after prompting by an academic whose own discipline, if not herself, leans in favour of the Dawkins school of thought - in contrast to the motivation that seems behind the banned editor's instertion (hence my mention). And I do think it is worth at least listing in the Dawkins article, because it's part of the great 'debate' that captivated and indeed imfluenced many, especially while Gould was alive. But I wouldn't just deliberately chuck reference to it into the middle of a paragraph in such a fashion that it disrupts the entire context (this added for completion and sense of dialogue).
So I thank you for bearing with me, and in particular for your comment. This was a first for me (there's a few of those as Wotnow wantonly wanders wondrously, wearily wikibizzoing within Wikipedia). But I'll heed your advice in any future such situations. Wotnow (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow
Thanks for your message on my talk. Just to clear up any misunderstanding, you did not revert my edit – I have been sensitive to the issue because I noticed a lot of work done by the "undoing" administrator who is trying to clean up. These cases are very rare, but to explain one further point, the particular sock may have been doing excellent work where all the edits were unambiguously wonderful, but the edits would still be entirely deleted. If you haven't encountered these situations before that can sound very strange, but I assure it is essential in the long term. I know nothing about the particular case, but I have seen others. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Like a sailor with a wooden leg, I stand corrected. You're right: I was reverting the reversion of something which was itself not your edit. I have seen the occasional situation where something seems not quite right but I can't put my finger on it (other than indirectly highlighting it for others to check out), and I think I see the point you're making, re the long-run gain from not giving licence to some forms of behaviour. Wotnow (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

What happens if I do this?[edit]

So if I just sign them tildes without my 'name', I get this. Wotnow (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC) You'd think I'd have figured that out long before now! Test- still logged in? Wotnow (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern GA, failing...[edit]

Hi Wotnow, I know you guys have gone to a lot of trouble over this new referencing system, but it probably came at the wrong moment after the article had already been submitted for GA. It's now created a bit of a muddle and is seriously interfering with the reviewer's efforts to get the article GA'd before the time limit runs out and has to be failed. It would be great if you and Gyro could do everything possible to sort these multiple issues out as quickly as possible - I'm afraid that I am completely useless and unable to help with it. See: Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1#Final comments. Other than correcting the references, please do not make any other edits at this stage. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while there was no substance to the issues raised, it takes considerably longer to answer such things than to raise them. I was in the process of trying to answer the issues as you posted this message. And I see GyroMagician has made some changes already. If there's something constructive I can do, I will. I gather you've got some life experience Kudpung, so you'll know that in the end Kudpung, it always comes down to goodwill. If goodwill is present, resolution is always possible. If for some reason goodwill is not present, barriers keep arising and while resolution is not impossible, it is at best difficult. Wotnow (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Life experience? Dunno - simply spent 30 yrs giving boring lectures to undergrads and grads in murky universities around the world, and writing equally boring tomes ;) One of my favourite expressions, particularly heard in Buddhist societies like the one I live in, is: There are no problems - only solutions. Here we avoid confilct at all cost, even if it means nothing finally gets done! --Kudpung (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to mention how excellent I found your explanation to Dona on her talk page. Ironically, it demonstrates far more the results that collaboration and discussion can achieve, than the actual issue at stake (referencing). For my part, I have no urgent or immediate intention to adopt the new template system, or in fact any template system for inline references, because:
  • Habit - this old dog learns new tricks on a learning curve that's got a bit slow.
  • Any changes require two separate interventions (to the text, and to the template in the reflist)
  • Cutting and pasting stuff from one article to another complete with their embedded refs is not possible, while many Malvern, and indeed Worcesteshire related articles share, or will be share the same snippets of text with their embedded sources that are copied and pasted between articles.
Nevertheless, I am confident that if you wish to adopt this style for the other articles in the project, there will be no objections, and I'm sure that if you do, you will modify my simple inline tags for me if and when required, until I have finally learned to use the system myself.--Kudpung (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
On your 30 years teaching. The repetitive stuff would feel tedious I guess. I recall that once, when I speculated how interesting a fellow's job looked (it required skill and good problem-solving), he replied to me that no matter what job one does in life, at some point it gets repetitive. I presume there were inspiring moments when dealing with students you could see progressing in leaps and bounds. Such highlights offset the drudgeries of life.
My 'advocacy' regarding referencing styles, or anything else for that matter, would be tolerance of unproblematic difference. When people use catchy phrases like 'biodiversity', they can overlook that this is just a form of heterogeneity. And heterogeneity tends to add robustness to any system, whether it be a diversity in a business environment, statisitcal analysis, 'brainstorming' sessions etc. Same phenomenon in different context. So my user page doesn't just elaborate on the style. It also demonstrates coexisting styles, contains caveats for the converted, and a link to a featured article that is referenced in the free-hand style you utilise. If at some point you find the 'list-defined' style advantageous, you'll use it. If not, I would advocate that it shouldn't matter. All that matters in the end is that what's contained in a reference is sufficient to track down the source (the more obscure the source, the more important the detail), and we do well not to lose sight of that. Wotnow (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Northamptonshirre, Worcestershierre, Warwickshierre, and Everyshierre[edit]

Hello Wotnow! A non-British user seems to be attempting to suggest that the Brits are not pronouncing their own British place names correctly, and appears to believe that it is a policy of Wikipedia to instruct the Brits, through the use of the IPA, how British English should be pronounced. He/she also seems to be of the opinion that it is Wikipedia policy to regard British English by default as a rhotic language, which it is not. Some British Wikipedians are trying to avoid an edit conflict and have requested my support. I have added my comments to the debate the non-British user has has started in defence of his/her multiple, WP:BOLD? changes to IPA pronunciations of British place names. As a professional linguist I accord every version of English its own particular merits and my position here strictly concerns the way in which the IPA is interpreted and applied in the Wikipedia, and how the current policy may need to be changed through a truly representative consensus. If you would like to help resolve this issue, please see User talk:Kudpung#IPA, RP, etc. and User talk:Lfh#Warwickshire to get the background. Maybe you could then chime in with your views on the subject at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Rhoticity in place names. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


You are now the proud owner of this badge - wear it with pride :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Cheers Kudpung. Congratulations back, to you and the rest of the team. A good team effort all round, and a privilege to participate in. And of course Dana boomer deserves thanks, which I see you've done, and which I wholeheartedly concur with. Wotnow (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of putting your badge on your user page for you where it now belongs, and from where it will do some stuff in the stats.--Kudpung (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn'a thunk o' that! We could call it an exercise in re-badging. Wotnow (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)



Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA reviews[edit]

Hi Wotnow, I just though I'd let you know that we may have been submitted to a GA review that insisted on a quality that might actually have gone beyond the GA criteria. This for example from the GA guideline page: Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
There is definitely no insistence that the referencing system follows any pattern at all, and even ugly bare URLs are allowed, while retrieved dates, book citations, publishers, are not required. Not that I'm complaining because the experience has set the standard for my own work that was probably never far off the mark anyway. But it's food for thought if ever we review anyone's articles.--Kudpung (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review, coincidental phenomena, and a raft of analogies[edit]

Cheers Kudpung. I did wonder myself, although for slightly different reasons. The GA culmination coincided with me stumbling into someone's "territory" and eliciting a remarkable over-reaction containing claims unsustainable by evidence readily available throughout Wikipedia. In the process of drafting a response (which I never did post), I did the logical thing, which is to find examples highlighting the spuriousness of the claims. You can see this from my contribution history. All this coincided with the culmination of the GA review, which itself coincided with us working through the referencing question. So it would be understandable for someone to wonder whether this "pattern of behaviour" meant anything to worry about.
Note of course the crux of the issue WE were dealing with was the layout - e.g. Wakefield/Shakespeare vs Malvern Water/Richard Dawkins. The underlying Wikibizzos were a by-product dialogue. This dialogue was important in itself. But it had no real meaning in isolation from the layout question which was the crux of the issue. A bit like genetics. Gotta get a handle on the genotype, but it's the phenotype people are interested in, whether it be animal breeding, human conditions, etc. One cannot admire the colour patterns of, nor parade and ride a horse genotype. One can only admire, parade and ride the horse phenotype.
So our Wiki markup and layout dialogues are reminiscent of the genotype-phenotype dialogues found in the Dawkins vs Gould camps, with some focusing on the hidden genotype as the unit of measurement by natural selection, and some on the phenotype as the unit of measurement. The Wiki markup of is the genotype analogue, while the overall layout seen by a reader is the phenotype. My own stance is reminiscent of Gould's. That is, that of course the genotype is of significance, without which there is no phenotype. But the environment does not "see" the genotype. It sees, and thus selects for or against, the phenotype. Remarkable parallel really, although unsurprising.
If a principle has any universal value, it will be found across a range of phenomena. So natural selection, while a phylogentic process, is nevertheless a process found at the ontological level. Neurogenisis in a developing brain is exactly that - natural selection on an ontological scale. Then there's natural selection processes in markets, of language itself, etc.
And of course we've dealt with some of the universal issues of linguistics: syntax and semantics (itself analogous to structure and function, just as anatomy and physiology is, all of which leads one to the principle that structure governs function, which leads back to to our own dialogues), or emic and etic (itself borrowed from anthropology but applicable to linguistics). All universal phenomena, the understanding of which is enhanced by stepping back and looking for where parallel processes may be seen, albeit under different names. For example, Heinz Kohut's "experience near" vs "experience far" is the psychoanalytic equivalent of emic vs etic. Sociologists too have their equivalents, and on it goes.
In the case of genotype-phenotype analogies, language itself will be amenable to this, which linguists such as you Kudpung, and others, will be in better position than me to know about. Even if you haven't previously thought of it in that fashion, you'll have no trouble grasping the concept and thinking of examples. And it's a safe bet that someone has written on the subject from that angle. You see in this yet another influence of Gould's style on me. Using the specific to explicate the general. Of course, he was a master at that, as Dawkins himself has readily acknowledged (I'll bet he misses his most worthy opponent). Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wotnow, I was not making any analogies to the way you and/or Gyro addressed the referencing system in either the Malvern or the Malvern water articles. I think the experiment was a necessary experience that will help determine the best systems to use for different kinds of articles. The main thing to keep in sight is that a Wikipedia article is not a university paper and its presentation and referencing should address even the visitor who may not normally read anything more intellectual than a local brochure of events and hotels. It is here that I feel we may have been forced into an academic situation by our reviewer, and that it has in fact pushed the Malvern article unnecessarily very close to Featured Article status. I mention all this because I've recently been ticked off by ther reviewer of an article I was helping out with, for verifying and cleaning up the referencesso that they at least display the correct syntax, have 'Retrieved' dates, and do not display bare URLs. I did a lot of checking before I nominated Malvern for review, during the Malvern review, and again since my recent reprimand, and I was never able find specific instructions to GA reviewers on the points I raised, so obviously the standards practiced vary widely. The irony in all this is that with Malvern we now have an article that could probably be safely nominated for Featured Article! --Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Kudpung. The analogies are down to me. It's one of my quirks. One can't unfortunately understand everything (and some of the more unsavoury aspects of the human condition one would rather not have understood, or more correctly, would rather not be true). But one can try to grasp the more universal aspects of underlying principles, which I guess is what I try to do, with varying degrees of success. Again I credit writers like Oliver Sacks, or especially Gould (but even the aforementioned tutor), for inspiration in this regard.
And your point is exactly that which I would make regarding the readership. Sure, specialists will peruse Wikipedia, for the same reason they peruse any populist writings - namely, that insights, good explanations, and good sources, are by no means exclusive to the "heavy" literature. Indeed some of the best explantions in any field are those written so a lay-reader can understand them. Moreover, this is an important yardstick for many specialists. But Wikipedia's main readership must necessarily be lay-readers from a wide range of backgrounds. So if in the end, they can make sense of a subject, and locate its sources if they want to or need to, the article has done its job.
I also concur that the whole process for the Malvern article did it more good than harm. And us too. It added to the quality of the article, and got us wrapping our heads around some things we'd not previously tried to wrap our heads around, and which we now know others have also grappled with, albeit in piecemeal fashion, from quite different directions. Wotnow (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

City and South London Railway[edit]

Thanks for adding the very useful further reading link to City and South London Railway. When I wrote the article the best I could find was a rather dirty scan of the map from the back of the monograph which is currently included in the article. It looks like there's some excellent material in there to bolster the engineering information and also for the tunnelling shield article.--DavidCane (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I pursued the link to Greathead, then given the era in which he lived, wondered if I might find something via Internet Archive, which is how I arrived at the reference. I have found some good stuff from that era via that website. It can be a bit frustrating sorting through multivolume works when the same, undifferentiated title was used for multiple uploads. I found that for example with my searches for specific volumes of Encyclopaedia Britannica, when searching for the volume containing Hydropathy, for the Captain R.T. Claridge article. If you go up a level, you see it's this. While writing this reply, it occurred to me that the Encyclopaedia Britannica may have something on Greathead or the City and South London Railway, or both. A Google search using the terms:
encyclopaedia britannica "south london railway"
That led me to this.[1] Given the engineering significance of the CSL Railway, there's a pretty good chance there's an article in at least one of the editions of the Encycl Brit. Indeed, I see the edition that I've cited below has a railways editor (Major Henry G. Prout; editor of The Railway Gazette, N.Y. see editor listings page n7). A note on the way I use the citation templates by the way. It's not accidental. Some citations, especially from that era, are complex and unwieldy. I don't care one iota about the underlying template, which is but a tool to use insofar as it's useful, as any engineer would concur. The object for me, always, is to get the display I'm seeking. Doesn't mean I always get it right. But it does mean I'm consciously thinking about what I'm trying to achieve with the tool at hand, which is a citation that is accurate and descriptive, but not too unwieldy to read. Wotnow (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wallace, Sir Donald Mackenzie, Arthur T. Hadley, & Hugh Chisholm (Chief editors) (1902). "Greathead, James Henry". The New Volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. V, forming volume XXIX of the complete work (10th ed.). New York: The Encyclopaedia Britannica Company. p. 90. Retrieved 21 January 2010.  Full text at Internet Archive (


I see you are surfing around various horse articles. Want to join WikiProject Equine? Aside from your interest in the topic, we need some more )pardon the pun) workhorses. If nothing else, we just had about 50 unreferenced BLP biographies dumped on us to fix, and even if we cut out all the ones on jockeys (which, as far as I am concerned, are WikiProject Thoroughbred Racing's problem), there are still quite a few, mostly of riders who competed in the Olympics, that need to be bailed out of deletion land. (On a cursory glance, most look basically accurate and not slanderous, just unreffed...) Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind invite. While I consider it a privilege to contribute in any way I can, the main limitation for me at present is that I have to pull back a bit from my Wikipedia activities. It is for this reason for example, that I've held back on getting further involved in the Worcestershire project, apart from passing input. How much I have to pull back remains to be seen. When I first began contributing to Wikipedia, I thought I might utilise my rather large library (which doens't have much on horses, apart from a few interesting essays by Stephen Jay Gould pertaining to their evolution and what we can thus learn about evolution and the writing thereof - see refs on my user page), especially prior to culling it. However, the culling operation is going to overtake my original aspirations, with a couple of dozen books, hundreds of articles and thousands of abstract printouts already culled, and still no visible progress other than that which I personally know I've made (and many empty file holders of various sorts). So my contributions to Wikipedia are, and unfortunately must be, less continuous, some of that itself being tidy-ups or attempts at tidy-ups of my own contributions. But I can't currently predict beyond this. Wotnow (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
FI, if you feel so inclined, given what appear to be your areas of interest, the various British Isles pony breeds, have a lot of articles in need of work. For the basic list, start at Mountain and moorland and go from there. The Welsh pony article is in pretty good shape, but the rest, well, aren't all that great. Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles to check[edit]

Captain John Porteous; Captain William Mackintosh; Captain Samuel Jarvis; Captain Will Hollyday; Capt. Marty Welch [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

Captain R.T. Claridge[edit]

Hi Wotnow, I happened to see your message on Rich Farmbrough's talk page. FYI, what you're looking to do is entirely covered at Wikipedia:Requested moves. However, also please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people); generally we don't put people's titles, ranks, etc. into an article name, and generally we do use a space between initials. All the best—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Glenfarclas. Since all this unnecessary kerfuffle, I have looked at the naming conventions.
I chose the name of the article for the simple reason that it is the name by which Claridge became known in the literature, which becomes very self-evident as one wades through the stuff. Indeed it was only the act of working on this article that I found the material giving him his full name.
So I chose the article name on the basis of logic alone, before I was aware of the naming conventions. Fortunately for logic, the naming conventions arrive at a similar conclusion, thus, regarding qualifiers: "This is rather a practical than a principal rule, so the general principle of 'the unambiguous name a person is best known by' easily takes precedence." It also states "If a qualifier is used in the title of a page where the content is, it is never abbreviated." Again, I came to the same conclusion when naming the article, but by logic alone.
I do however appear to stand corrected regarding spacing between initials. I saw "There is no consensus for always using spaces between initials, neither for never using them", and left it at that. But looking again, I see the next sentence is: "However, in most Wikipedia articles where the subject uses two consecutive initials, the space between initials is used; see Literary initials." Checking that link, there is a list of examples, which in fact I was trying to find by various means prior to us getting to this point.
But in that process, I did find Captain E.G. Beaumont, which has both the initials without spacing, and the use of Captain before the name. Also, that article, and some others with Captain in the name, existed some time prior to the article which I created, and are not as substantive in content. Why have they been overlooked? I have no opinion on whether their names should remain, as I don't know without reviewing the literature - and nor does ANY editor - whether that reflects their general usage or not.
A Google check can help of course. And since this kerfuffle has arisen, I did a Google check, which gave more returns for Captain R.T. Claridge than for say Richard Tappin Claridge. But I already knew that, from the time and effort I spent researching for the article. So if anyone should know it's me (and if logic is allowed to prevail, this conclusion is unavoidable, even if one thinks I'm just an obnoxious bastard), and I wasn't asked at any point in the proceedings. Never mind etiguette, this is basic logic. Wotnow (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC re {{r}}[edit]

This is to inform you that I have raised an RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Suspend_replacing_of_.3Cref.3E_by_.7B.7Br.7D.7D_in_citations on the issues at our recent discussion at Talk:Arthropod. --Philcha (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. I could see that the whole thing is being fuelled not so much by good faith, but by an agenda that involves subtle trouble-making that has the intended effect of raising the ante and creating an artificial crisis. I've been around a bit in life, and seen this in politics, organisations, society, and even some criminal fraternities. And in all of those cases, good faith was not forthcoming, but skulduggery certainly was. Wotnow (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC).
After working through the various discussions, it seems to me that the main issue was not skulduggery or deliberate trouble-making on any individual's part, but rather, mutual suspicion on the part of the parties about each other's underlying motives. That can lead to one or both parties raising the ante, but outcome prospects are better if mutual suspicions or apprehensions can be allayed. Wotnow (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
P.s. I have responded in more detail on your own talk page partly because it's easier for you to find it there, but - I confess - partly because the next thing I have to figure out for my own talk page is how to archive earlier sections. I've had a brief look at the two main methods, and I'll be aiming for the one that keeps the revision history intact and allows for searches (which I think rules out the cut-and-paste method). So I know loosely what I want to achieve. I have also, in perusing various talk-pages, encountered one which has a search field atop the archive list - I will want to check that out further.
There is another thing I want to achieve, which is the sort of thing I personally would find helpful when visiting a talk page with archives. I want to list the titles of the talk topics with links to the archive, so someone visiting the talk page doesn't have to open the archive to see what's there. Thus, the section on merging the brachial-plexus articles would have a link, which someone can see at a glance and check if they want to. I don't find anonymous archive lists helpful as a reader, and so I don't want to do that to others myself. As I write this, I realise that's probably easy enough to do. I have already provided links in discussions and on my user page to archived sections of talk pages. So conceptually I'm developing a picture. The next thing I have to do is set aside a block of time - for I know not how long it will take, but obviously my first effort will take longer than any subsequent efforts, and may involve some error. So there you go. Just so you know. Of course, all of this tells you, or anyone else reading, areas I'm not familiar with, which includes things like automated process. My impression is that you have more experience and knowledge on some of those aspects of Wikipedia, which makes your own feedback and perspective very valuable, especially if you have made the effort yourself to check out background facts. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

TfDs, etc.[edit]

Thanks I appreciate your input, although I'm not sure exactly what to do with it. I agree that it is poor form to (e.g.) remove all article from a category at CfD (it is explicitly acknowledged as such.) I would only do that in the case of what is clearly abusive/inappropriate/etc. categorization. (E.g. I recall one time when something like Category:Milfs was up for deletion. In that case, I removed the articles and then listed them in a comment at the CfD. That way, editors could see what was in the category before making a decision and articles would not be in a patently inappropriate category. Deletion was a foregone conclusion, of course.) In the case of these TfDs, since all of the templates were already deprecated and several of them (e.g. Template:Harvard reference) were redundant, I felt like it was entirely warranted to either remove them from the article namespace, mark them TfD, or both. I am not familiar with any discussion of the intersection of deprecation with the TfD process, but I would be happy to read any guidelines regarding it. I hope this is a useful response to you; if you feel like writing back, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Your reply is good to hear (read) and it makes complete sense now.
It seems to me like the styling of templates is a matter that could be easily solved with user preferences and if someone really wants the Harvard/APA/Chicago/MLA style, that could be achieved in a pretty straightforward manner as long as the different pieces of information are presented. I am on the same page as you to the extent that I don't really care about the difference between:
  • Author – "Title". Journal, 1(5) Publisher Press (1997), pp.67–87
  • "Title", by Author. Journal vol. 1, issue 5 (1997), from Publisher Press (pp. 67–87)
Or basically any other combination of that same data. Honestly, what's the difference? (Also, those examples are completely arbitrary and I'm sure that neither of them conform to any standard.) Again, thanks for your input. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

Hi Wotnow , I found the {{r}} template on that article, and figured it makes sense to use whatever citation style was in place, per MOS. I think it's a reasonable mechanism, cleaner than the old one, and I see no reason to revert to the old way in that article. If there is a software problem with a bot, the bot should be fixed. In this case, the short template is easier to edit with since it's less cluttered, so removing it would make life harder for editors. I think it would be much easier to fix the bot. But thanks for letting me know about this. Crum375 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I only now noticed you actually reverted some of those templates to the old style. Please do not change template or citation style in existing articles without obtaining consensus for it, per WP:CITE: "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
In reply to your latest message, I am not aware of any of the politics or personalities. I just know that this method and style are easier to use, easier to edit, and the templates were in the article when I got there, so I continued using them. Please don't revert the style without consensus, per WP:CITE. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation format discussion[edit]

Hi wotnow. There is a recent discussion going on at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style that seems to be right up your street. I haven't read it all because as you know, I'm more of a content researcher & writer than a Wiki software engineer, but I thought you would find it interestig. i'm sure you will havesomething to contribute to the discussion. Cheers; --Kudpung (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


IPA in British place names[edit]

I see that the American campaign against the British pronunciation of British place names, by British Wikipedeia authors and British citizens has been relaunched. I think this campaign is deceitful and goes against an admin's remit. I might not be so prepared to let things rest this time round, especially as the editors concerned are oblivious of the sensitivities they may be affronting, and even though I am one editor who abhors opening cans of worms. I may call an RfC and will look forward to your support.--Kudpung (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Old Malvernians[edit]

Hi wotnow. Because you are the expert with citations, I wonder if you could do us a favour and put all the Betts references in List of Old Malvernians into harvard style. BTW, I will be in the UK during April, if you fabcy meeting up do let me know.--Kudpung (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hillary article reference work[edit]

Please see my query at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Linking citations with bibliography. The article has a large number of references, it's best to get advance agreement on a change like this before investing a huge amount of effort. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Malvern Water[edit]

Ref No.18 in Malvern Water has a naked URL, but for some reason I can't locate it in the text. I wonder if you could check it out please. Then I suggest we try to get this article through a GA review. What do you think?--Kudpung (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire.
Message added 11:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

World population[edit]

Hi wotnow.

I've only taken a superficial look at your recent changes to World population (the milestones section), but it seems good, and I'd like to point something out to you that you may not be aware of: This section used to be next to the doubling sequences section, and both sections used to reference the page World population estimates. I think the reference to that page should be re-added to the milestones section, and I think some of your recent work would be more appropriately transferred to the estimates page.

-- (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire Sauce[edit]

Hi Wotnow. First let me thank you for all your help in finding the technical sources for Malvern Water. I hope the article passes but I have the feeling that the closer we get, the reviewer thinks up more things it needs. I think its scope and size is quite adequate, especially when 2-paragraph articles about M-Way service stations get the green cross, and I am not going to turn it into a fan page for a local artist, or into a collection of local action trivia from the local newspaper.
On another matter, there might be a problem brewing up for a new flavour of Worcestershire Sauce, and I might need your help if it comes to blows. If you have time, please check these out:Talk:Worcestershire sauce, and User talk:Diti. The user is French and quite new and may not quite understand. Do keep the pages on your weatchlist if you can, because I have put a lpt into that article, and while I don't of course lay any claims to ownership of it, like Malvern Water, once I have cleaned it up, with your help I would like to make it yet another GA for our Worcs project. --Kudpung (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your comment. I've replied as best I can for now. I think escalation is probably avoidable, and collaboration is even possible, if notin the Worcestershire sauce article, then elsewhere. I presume by "M-Way" you mean 'motorway'? Which M-way article? Regards Wotnow (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The editor was led into believing that my comments were disrespectful. I have moved his diatribe to my talk page as per Wikipedia instructions. The instigator of all this, is ironically an editor who, unprovoked, leaves the most vile of personal abuse on other people's pages! The diffs are the proof, but I'm not one to run to Aunty ANI on every silly or vindictive prank.
The very short GA is Strensham services. I mentioned this because I rightly or wrongly get the impression that every time we address a reviewer's request, new ones are made. In my opinion, Malvern water was practically GA before we started (apart from a couple of technical tweaks), is of adequate length, broad in coverage, and has balanced content for each of its sections, and more than enough images - all GA criteria that have long since been addressed and remedied if required. I know it's useless to argue with a reviewer, unless there is a strong consensus, but there are not enough active editors on this article even to obtain an opinion from. personally, I don't care two hoots if it passes or not - I was doing it for the project, not to get a feather i my own cap.--Kudpung (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung. To me, it doesn't look like we're too far from passing. The reviewer outlined specific issues, and added the Fixed tag as you addressed most items. That shows two things to me. Firstly, goodwill on the reviewer's part. And secondly, a fair bit of effort on your part, which goes a long way to explaining how you feel about the apparent never-ending process, because large efforts are not indefintitely sustainable. When we did the Malvern article, we were sharing the effort amongst three primary editors, but it was still a significant effort for each of us. The difference was that when one of us was taking a break from it to get on with other things, one or both of the other editors was beavering away, culminating in a burst of effort from all of us to get across the line. To attempt the same sort of thing between with less editors and less time per editor, seems pretty daunting, and questionable in terms of return-for-volunteer-effort. We the editors will always feel that we've done more than enough, because only we know the amount of actual time spent finding resources, reading them, and working them into the article. Even a 'minor' edit can mask hours of effort. So we're always going to have a biased perspective on the matter.
Nevertheless, there's not a lot left to the reviewer's list, conceptually at least. We've added a few more secondary resources. We've expanded a bit on the interest groups. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Using web pages as references.[edit]

On of the most fierce debates on Wiki policy is about what determines a truly WP:RS. I like to see references cleanly listed in the {{reflist}} sections of articles, and I've always admired your tenacity in searching for refs, and experimenting with ways of displaying them. However, I'm sometimes still confused, after all these years of editing, about primary sources, secondary sources, print sources, web sources, etc., but I use what I think is right, and tend to err on the safe side (which means in fact that I don't use a lot of sources that other editors would). As a traditional academic, I prefer of course the print approach, but do realise that after fifteen years of Internet, we must give electronic storage its dues. Now, you, as our resident expert on sourcing and referencing, can help me here. You'll have noticed that during a GA, very often one of the problems is that web sources that were used during the creation of an article have since become either dead links, or the original page no longer exists. This is a shame because it often concerns pages on local government sites that would otherwise have been considered 'safe' sources. It suddenly dawned on me while editing a Wellingborough related article (David Frost) that we could of course be accessing those deleted pages through Wayback Machine. There even exists a template for using it, although the Frost article is the first time I have ever seen it used. I know about Wayback of course, but I had never considered using it in a Wikipedia context. I would be interested to know what your thoughts would be on this on this.--Kudpung (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your kind comments. I'll be brief for now, as I'm due to be interrupted by pending tasks. I confess that I've not tried the wayback machine other than to peruse it a couple of times and then leave it alone as a possible distraction (for me that is). However, I actually wrote something on my strategy for dealing dead links. I just did a search and fortuantely found it at the talk page of the Nine-banded Armadillo. For now, it's easier to point you to that. See what you think. One of my intentions is to try to pull together my various strategies into a succinct, coherent, and easy-to-find summary on my user page. So your query is a good prompt for that. Kind regards Wotnow (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Wotnow, there is some very good advice in that posting - do go ahead and pull all those bits of advice together if you have time, and maybe you can write a special mainspace article at WP:ESSAYS about finding sources.--Kudpung (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome Kudpung. In the meantime, I've incorporated the relevant paragraph into Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire/Referencing. If the information is grouped into key areas, we or others can capitalise on this in the future. Regards Wotnow (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Malvern water[edit]

Hi Wotow. There seelms to be a consensus that we have all done as much as we can to elevate the article to GA. ASFAIK, there are no guidelines that state that GAs have to be long, or have illustrations for every section. I concur that we appear to have addressed all the reviewer's points. The reviewer accorded an exceptionally long time for this GA - do you think he may have forgotten it?--Kudpung (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he might need a gentle reminder. According to his contribs, he's still around doing 30 - 40 edits a day.--Kudpung (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You might be right. I've left a brief comment on his talk page. Regards Wotnow (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The reviewer has kindly replied, and the article has passed. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and congratulations and more thanks and appreciation for helping get this article to GA! --Kudpung (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Malvern College[edit]

Hi Wotnow. User:Abacchus1974 and I have been working for several months on Malvern College to bring it up to standard. As our resident citations guru, if you have time would you like to check and format (if necessary) the refs? I'll then nominate the article for a GA review. BTW, all your edits are currently showing as 'minor'. I'm sure this was not your intention; you can change this by unchecking the box at: my preferences/Editing/Mark all edits minor by default. regards, --Kudpung (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi Wotnow. this might interest you.--Kudpung (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I concur. I've had less to do with Dana Boomer than yourself, but I think she plays a constructive role in Wikipedia, and should perform the role of admin as well as anyone can. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks as if the close will be a foregone conclusion, but it's nice of you to have taken an interest and done whatever you thought was necessary :) --Kudpung (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Malvern College[edit]

Hi Wotnow. I've nominated mMlvern College today for GA review. There's quite a backlog over there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that reviewers take things in order. The low hanging fruit seems to go first. --Kudpung (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. I don't know how helpful I'll be in the lead-up, or the forseeable future, as my library culling process is about to kick up a gear or two. On reflection, a 20ft container is probably about the size of my beast. I've been dealing so far only with photocopies of books and articles, some magazines, notes, essays and literally reams of abstract printouts. Much of what I've cited in various Wikipedia articles has come from this, or at least kicked off brief forays into various articles, yet they are a very small fraction of that which I've culled. While some books have been culled, the best I've done so far is to clump a few hundred of 'don't keep' ones into one area, ready for the rapid and ruthless phase. So a crunch of some sort is coming for better or worse, and my forays into Wikipedia are likely to be increasingly sporadic, with perhaps occasional input bursts.
Malvern College looks to me like it shouldn't require much work to pass GA. There may be a request for citations for one or two sentences at the end of paragraphs (see e.g. Alumni section). They'll probably be coverable by citations already used in the article, so it's just a matter of capitalising on them. I may have a quick foray to see if I can find some resources to add to a 'Further reading' list.
As I write this, I've just done a quick Google search, and found a Malvern Register 1865-1904, which I'll add. I'll probably try to chuck a couple of citations from it into the article - one facilitating a primary citation with full reference, and another to provide a template for subsequent citations. I'll not be able to do much beyond that at this time. As for the alumni bit, one of you Malvernians will be in the best position to capitalise on the Register or any other such resources, as you'll recognise any significant names instantly, which is much quicker than anything I could do. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Talk:Malvern College.
Message added 07:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your user page[edit]

Hi, I've done something basically illegal - I've refactored your user page.... --Kudpung (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Talk:List of Old Malvernians.
Message added 03:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your input would be most welcome. Kudpung (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Wotnow . In order to more accurately interpret Wikipedia policy, it has been suggested that we rename the Malvern, Worcestershire page. Please see the proposal at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Suggested page move where you are welcome to voice your opinion. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire[edit]

Hi Wotnow. We have a new editor who is keen to do more research for Malvern. Do check out his suggestions if you have time, and chime in with your thoughts. There may be some issues with footnotes. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Is now nominated as a WP:GAC. Get ready for battle :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi Wotnow. A Worcestershire Project page has now been taken on by a reviewer for Good Article after a very long wait. Several points need addressing, but the page has not been rejected as an immediate fail. If you have time, please see Talk:Evesham, and if you can address any of the points listed, I'm sure that between us we can get it through to GA. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As you'll be aware I have managed to make some contributions, although I'll have to constrain myself from hereon. Remarkably, I actually got to cite a book on English dialects which I mentioned in a previous discussion. When I was briefly shown that book all those years ago, I never imagined that: (a) I'd one day cue myself in to finding the book on via an internet that didn't then exist; and (b) I'd then peruse and cite that book in an editable database that also didn't exist. Wotnow (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


Golly Wotnow, that was a brilliant speech you put on Michael P. Barnett's page. You should make a Wikipedia essay out of it! --Kudpung (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. I was reasonably pleased to be able to formalise a few thoughts off the top of my head. It's always nice to realise one's brain has chugged away on the data it's been fed and synthesised some of it. By far my best ever abstract (and one which matches any good abstract on the topic - I know this as I've kept an eye on the field) was written more or less off the top of my head, after 6 months solid research, and half-way into a year-long project (on the evolution of taste and various biocultural factors). In the case of my thoughts here and there on Wikipedia, what I'm trying to do is formalise loose thoughts, and put them out there for reality-testing. If I'm around long enough, I'll try to pull something together at some time. But if all else fails, I've understood a few things, and formalised a few thoughts. Regards Wotnow (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Finnhorse in Peer Review[edit]

Hi, I'd be glad if you could help me out with the monster that is the Finnhorse -- it's now having a Peer Review, and any help at all will be appreciated. Pitke (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Last Goon Show of All-punchline lead-up.ogg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Last Goon Show of All-punchline lead-up.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Malvern, Worcestershire/archive1[edit]

Hi Wotnow. I listed this at peer review because I thought it would lie there for weeks before someone picked it up. However, it was retrieved in seconds by User:Tim riley for whom I did the peer review for his Elgar article some time ago that later passed FA. There is no hurry for this PR and there are no deadlines, but I'm just letting you know in case you would want to help out with some tweaks. I am flying to the UK (Barnards Green) on 19 July and will be staying for 2 months. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Flying to the UK! I am impressed. Most people take a plane. Barnard's Green eh? I thought he was more of a dirty yellow. I hope he gets better. I'm intermittently working on the Zetor tractor article, in between a range of other challenging tasks relating to a complete life change, the success or failure of which is yet to be seen (time alone will tell). But I certainly will have a look at the Elgar article. If there is a change or escalation in the time-frame before I get to it, please let me know and I'll prioritise as best I can. Wotnow (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry , my fault, I meant the Malvern article of course - the review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Malvern, Worcestershire/archive1. Wikipedia:Peer review/Malvern, Worcestershire/archive1. I needs all the refs briniging into one style for one thing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Hi Wotnow. I'm just letting you know that I have submitted List of Old Malvernians for peer review as a first step to possible Featured List. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. I'll keep an eye out and see if I can contribute. My contributions have been very sporadic of late, apart from some forays into the Jackie Evancho article and a bit on speech and acoustics (I just use this stuff for search terms and leads etc., and then I'm off on my next learning adventure - if I can contribute back on the way, I do of course) as I follow the career of this remarkable talent, and along the way learn something about classical/opera and other singers. I'll see if I can pick up my contributions a bit this month. Who knows - I sure don't: too much uncertainty going on. Wotnow (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Jackie Evancho[edit]

Thanks for the ref. Can you find out anything about her activities in 2009 and early 2010? When exactly did she meet Foster? How many concerts did she do with him before AGT? There are a bunch of YouTube videos, but we need newspaper articles that mention dates, etc. I don't want to add too much, because the article's already a little wordy, but we sort of rush from where she saw "Phantom of the Opera" to Prelude to a Dream and AGT. It would also be interesting to find out the real reason why they cancelled the Carnegie Hall appearance. I am amazed that they chose to do that while following through with all the other holiday appearances that she did in NYC and elsewhere. BTW, her video at the Chefs for Seals event, with the baby seal doll sticking out of her pocket is criminally cute. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I see you've begun fleshing the article out a bit. I'll do what I can. Sorry about the delayed reply. My editing can be a bit sporadic at present due to my circumstances. Whether that will improve (or I take a one way walk into the hills) remains to be seen. The answer to the Carnegie Hall appearance may lie in a deliberate need to pace out rather than 'burn out' her development. Her adult voice depends largely (although not exclusively) on how it is managed during the transition from childhood (although I daresay I'm saying nothing you don't already know). Or it may be some other reason, such as clashing of commitments/preparation for other commitments. I think I saw the Chefs for Seals video. I've checked out a few. People find Evancho to be inescapably adorable: such talent, such an intelligent girl, and such an unspoilt attitude. She represents the idyllic childhood, and is a stark contrast and antidote to the misery of children such as Nujood Ali, to whom no one pays any real attention apart from briefly jumping on the bandwagon when she hit the headlines. Of course much of that comes down to helplessness. Which is one reason people are so enthralled with the likes of Evancho: here we see someone whose life is unfolding in a way that represents what we wish the world could be like. Wotnow (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! No rush - there's no deadline. We'll just keep improving the article little by little. BTW, I think we should take out the stuff about the tonsils. It's just something Jackie said once. It's not on her website or later interviews, and the research paper that we cite to is terrible. As for Carnegie Hall, it would have been a very prestigious world record, so I think there must have been a very specific scheduling conflict. I like your analysis of Evancho. I would add that she instinctively shapes her phrases in a very musical and attractive way, and that her natural technique, especially in moving from low to high register is thrilling in its gentle way. Here's the baby seals video. :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I have no objection to the removal of the note about the tonsils. The enlarged vocal chamber will account for the anomaly of an adult-like voice emanating from a child, which is part of what captured people's attention. However, the sheer talent of this girl is what kept people's attention and captured their imagination. My suggestion regarding the note is that you leave it there until some other useful, but not central, comment arises for which the notes section can be utilised. Then simply co-opt my note and delete the bit about the tonsils. The relevance of such a strategy is that the article structure remains stable, without too much jarring change. I think stability of structure assists in reduction of vandalism (major restructuring to facilitate large amounts of accumulated info notwithstanding - but those are specific efforts rather than periodic restructures). But whatever you choose to do re the tonsils is okay with me. I've understood that aspect and created cues for further research on the topic, which is much of what I'm about. Wotnow (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, leaving the note structure for now is a good idea. On another topic, tomorrow is the Pittsburgh concert, so maybe there will be news about it. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Evancho concert info[edit]

Unless multiple sources contain substantially different info, I think it's better to just give one good source for each concert. Also, I don't think it is worth mentioning that any particular concert sold out - most of her concerts sell out. So I moved that info up where it applies more generally. Also, if you don't think it's worth mentioning that Pittsburgh featured its own soloists and chorus in separate numbers, feel free to remove the sentence. After all, nearly every venue has provided chorus, and this article is about Evancho. But I put the sentence in so you could see it and decide. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm under time pressure at present. My main approach in such circumstances is to find references and drop them into the nearest relevant place in an article. My suggestion is that other editors check out the refs to see whether and how they can utilise them, as sometimes they facilitate the filling of gaps or expansion of other sections. Wotnow (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Just for you: Jackie with the Pittsburgh Opera orchestra. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Gracias (or whatever other flora you favour!). You've just made my day. I will endeavour to add a couple of refs in a few minutes. Bear with me - time pressure again, so I may not be able to expand much on them myself at present. The objective is to facilitate expansion or filling in of gaps. Have a look at the refs and see what you can make of them (sometimes I'll get it right. Sometimes I won't. No problem). For my part, I should have more time to do more with them later. Wotnow (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll just park this link here for now. It should help fill in the David Foster connection Wotnow (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I really suggest deleting the mention of Audible images. It's commercial information that doesn't add much to the story. I've deleted it, and you've put it back in, so I won't delete it again myself, but I think we should try to keep things as lean and mean as possible. You can keep the citation, though, which contains the info.... All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi-yo Ssilvers! (Unless you know this catchphrase, you'll need to read on via the link). I had thought it might be of some interest or use, but perhaps not. I'll knock it out. The quote by the recording engineer may fit at some point in commentary about Jackie's pitch-perfect musicality and intellect from a young age. That's the essence of what he was saying, and what David Foster is saying when he says she "glues herself to the music". A section on this may be warrented as the data mounts - I suspect it's getting there already, hence the quote from back then. The nearest existing relevant section is that on critical reception. Regards Wotnow (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'm old enough to remember "Hi-yo Silver!" I don't think we need these rather self-serving statements by producers about how Evancho is supposed to be easy to work with. A producer's job includes saying nice things about their clients. These statements, even if true, are not substantive. Better to mention independent reviews of the albums themselves. As times goes on, I think we will get some specific statements about Evancho's musicianship, style and capabilities that will be far more useful to discuss than the subjective opinions (or self-serving lies) of producers. I bet that, before long, someone will write a book about her. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Aye. I see she has a mention in one book already, although it could hardly be called an in-depth critical analysis. Nevertheless, the context of usage is valid and pertinent. If you knew nothing about her and didn't see who was singing, you'd experience a (pleasant) expectancy violation. There's a word which captures that, but I can't bring it to mind. I notice the book went to the printers before the Carnegie Hall cancellation was publicised though. Wotnow (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the word "spoiler", or something fancier? LOL re: Carnegie Hall. I don't think we need to cite anything in the ...for Dummies series. It does underline her popularity, but I think we have already done that. And, as I say, there will be lots more written about J.E. soon. Her new holiday album will be out on November 1. Also, I will not be surprised if she is nominated for a Grammy for Dream With Me. She appears to be in Japan right now, according to her Twitter feed! Did she really jump right on a plane after the Pittsburgh concert? Gah! Also, the Robert Redford movie is filming now in Vancouver (though it's not scheduled for release until 2013). Las Vegas is coming up.... So, I think we can be selective in what we include. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not "spoiler". That would fit for an unpleasant expectancy violation. No, this is a pleasant expectancy violation. I tried to cue myself in with an email to a friend, but could only say the following: 'There's a word I'm looking for where one's expectations are pleasantly violated: as in "oh, a cute little kid. What am I going to cook for dinner tonight - eh!? wot!? holy cow!?"' Perhaps I was mistooken and there is no word. I just perused a thesaurus, and most words one could use can have either positive or negative connotations, depending on the context used. Perhaps astounding, as in 'he/she/they was/were astounded': that word seems to be less context-dependent such that the automatic assumption is of positive connotations. I begin to see what the likes of Douglas Hofstadter and that Wittgenstein fellow were on about re things like context-free language or lack thereof, and the sheer difficulty of adequately describing phenomena in a fashion that is understandable without oversimplifying it in the process and thus reducing our understanding to a simplistic caricature of the more complicated and confouding phenomena - this is of course the crux of John Barrow's "Groucho Marx Effect". As for her location, I can only paraphrase Muhammad Ali's famous reply re Vietnam: Do I know where Jackie Evancho is? Yeah I know where Jackie Evancho is. She's on the internet! (you may recall he famously said "yeah I know where Vietnam is. It's on t.v." Which was profoundly true for many people watching the world's first televised war. Now of course, the internet prevails). Wotnow (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You were right. She is in in Japan. I guess part two is to follow. She's still on the internet! Wotnow (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Part II of Japan TV appearance and Part III. Notice the smiley face that Jackie uses in her signature. More Japanese TV. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Serendipity? Or maybe just "happy surprise". LOL! Yes, she's an internet star and, like the soldiers in Vietnam, also on the front lines. BTW, here is a very interesting clip of the music director of the Pittsburgh Opera talking about what it was like to get ready for Jackie's concert: I would definitely not link it in the article, because he doesn't say anything about Jackie or her musicianship (he could have said that he was lucky that she is the real thing!) but it shows how dangerous this concert series has been - performing with all these live orchestras that she had never met until the day of the performance could have led to a major mishap this summer. It is lucky that Jackie is confident enough to lead and trust that these conductors will follow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. There is material that could be used. One would want to create a separate paragraph on what goes into preparing for these concerts. Key points: two days for the orchestra to familiarise itself with the performer's material; but actual practice with the singer was only about three hours prior to the concert and limited to a portion of her songs, with the remainder being performed unrehearsed. These are in fact significant points especially given the age of the singer, as noted by Walker. Wotnow (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I would put it in the List of Jackie Evancho concert tours article rather than the main article. Her concert tours have, so far, not been the most important part of her career, and so much information about them would, IMO, not be a balanced approach. Plus, I think her article will just keep getting longer and longer, and we need to work hard to keep it down to a reasonably readable size. But the concert tours article is a good place for it. Also, that article could use some updating if you feel like working on it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png For finally getting some decent citations into Fainting Game Ex nihil (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Cheers! (Stumbles, trips, spills beer and faints) Wotnow (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A Camel for You[edit]

Thanks for catching my inexact term in the camel page update. Activist (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Jackie at Lincoln Center[edit]

I saw Jackie's Lincoln Center concert last night. She was fantabuloso, of course! I doubt that Avery Fisher Hall has often heard such a roar from an audience. After her encore (Pie Jesu), she was called back onstage over and over until they turned on the lights to make us leave! She sang Angel so beautifully, and O Mio Babbino Caro was perhaps the best I ever heard her sing it. Photos here! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Talk:Evesham.
Message added 03:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:A Dustbin of Milligan.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A Dustbin of Milligan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Wotnow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Malvern, Worcestershire[edit]

I have finally got round to listing it for review as a Featured Article. All help needed! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)