Wikipedia

User talk:Kbthompson/Archive 4

< User talk:Kbthompson
Latest comment: 13 years ago by MSGJ in topic Edit request from Ssilvers, 23 December 2010
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

April Metro

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Simply south (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Smithfield, London

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, many thanks for the support and useful feedback on Smithfield's FAC discussion. As you may have seen, the nomination elicited a large number of comments, some of which include sensible suggestions on how to improve the article. Unfortunately at the moment I do not have much time to work on this. I was wondering if, as a passionate contributor on London history, you would be happy to help address the comments/criticisms and improve the weakest parts of the article. I am going to post an identical request to Iridescent --DarTar (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Be glad to, should I get some time. It's unfortunate that the FA process has become such a minefield. I generally restrict my comments to issues of content these days. I'm not even sure I'd voluntarily put any articles I'm involved in through it, anymore. I'm also off on holiday soon; and have a number of issues to fix to ensure that P:L gets updated in my absence. Thanks for the invitation, and I will try to thread my way through the minefield of (often contradictory) comments on the article. A collaboration could potentially make the job a bit easier! Kbthompson (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Project tagging

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Do you think it would be useful to have AnomieBOT go through Category:London and its many subcategories and automatically tag everything, and then manually go through the morass de-tagging any that are inappropriate? There shouldn't (touch wood) be too many false-positives, and it would be good to get them all "in the fold" if only to see what we have; just my minor manual tagging spree through Visitor Attractions and related categories added 2000 articles. If nothing else, it would allow us to see just how much dross we have that needs deleting; if I see another primary school article or nondescript office building, I think I'll put my fist through the screen. – iridescent 23:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to tidy up the articles for the May portal; then pack to leave early Friday - so, not much out of me for the next couple of weeks, I'm afraid. Sounds like a good idea. Sometime I need to go through our 'London' and check the categorisation - we can have a go at adding 'stub' and 'low' to all those too! We have all those nice categories and people will insist on adding (say) 'theatres in Westminster' - '... London' - '... England' - '... UK' - '... Europe' - '... third planet on the left (past Basingstoke)'.
I'd be for keeping anything that has some assertion of notability - listed building, notable alumni, (say) top 20 in height. We should probably get rid of anything that says '... is a ...' and is '... harmless ...' - possibly keep stuff that says 'mostly harmless'. There should probably be discussion at WP:LON as to where to draw the line. Kbthompson (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As the bot requires approval from the project, I've opened a talkpage thread; assuming nobody objects, we can set it running in a week or so and then go through the heap it will produce assessing/untagging/deleting as appropriate. – iridescent 12:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Cat B churches could be merged into Grade II* - they are equivalent - that one was just me being pedantic. Kbthompson (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - April 2009 Issue

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Summary: Wikimedia UK has held it's first AGM! The AGM included numerous speakers talking about a wide range of topics, ranging from collaboration with the BBC to reaching out around the world with Wikipedia on a DVD! A number of official actions were also taken - including the passing of six Resolutions, the election of the new seven-person Board, and the first new Board meeting! Also this month, an overview of the Chapters meeting in Berlin, of which two of our number were present, and details of the upcoming meetups this month!

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Annual General Meeting
  2. New Board
  3. Chapters Meeting
  4. Meet-ups


Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skenmy (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Arms-hackney-mb.jpg)

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Thanks for uploading File:Arms-hackney-mb.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Superseded by File:Hackneymbarms.png Kbthompson (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

May Portal

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It worked okay. Simply south (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a bonus .... tx .... Kbthompson (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

May Metro

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As Simply South is busy, I've stepped in for this one; this is my first time, so feel free to fix any mistakes or let me know of anything I've missed. – iridescent 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Harringay Online

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Would welcome your thoughtful consideration on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harringay_Online if you have the time. :o) hjuk (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit marginal. I've seen articles with many more ref's deleted; but then again, I've seen some with much less - and less relevance - kept. The Guardian article you mention is about Savvy Chavvy; not Haringay Online. That trouser ripping noise is me sitting on the fence!
I have removed ELs from other articles, on the grounds that they point to contentless blogs. I think this is somewhat different as it has many of the qualities of a local newspaper - but then again, we don't always have articles on them. I'm not convinced it should be deleted, but then again I'm not convinced it should be kept. If it's any help, should it be necessary and you do get the reference to a two page spread in the FT; then I'd be glad to 'undelete it' for you.
From the tone of your defence, I'd say that you're involved - do be careful not to get tangled in a WP:COI. Kbthompson (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks kbt. Yes, I am involved. I've added a note to that effect on the talk page to the article. Is that OK? There's no commercial interest at stake here. As you know, my interest is Harringay in general, not just this one thing.

Agree about the Guardian article, but Harringay Online is mentioned in it which is why I added it. What references do count if not the EU / UK Government / respectable magazine / Press Association?

Your comments sound thoughtful and balanced. That's seems not necessarily to always be the case with all editors. What action is open to me if I feel an article is being unfairly judged. I can't see any way that it's as black and white as the commenting eds make out. hjuk (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, afd is an end to it when it reaches a consensus for deletion. There is a process called Deletion review; and you always have the option to wait a few months, re-add the article with further information that meets some of the criticisms that have been expressed the first time round. It would not be acceptable just to put the same material back up.
There tends to be a lot of hot air blown over deletions - and frankly yours could still go either way. Some people will always express a desire to 'delete'; others to 'keep'. Evidence does sometimes seem tangential. A few refs in the article to reliable and independent sources would go a long way to 'keep'ing the article. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian monastics and orders

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Heads up! What you appear to be trying to do is move Category:Religious organizations established in the 14th century and Category:Religious organizations established in the 13th century to Category:Christian monasteries established in the 13th century (for example). This does not seem to have worked for London Charterhouse or Order of Poor Ladies‎. The second, as you can see are nuns, so not in a monastery in any case. There may be others. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
What you may not know a monastery is a place for monastics of either gender, whether monks or nuns. The Order of Poor Ladies‎ however, is not a monastery a different reason; it is a Religious order that can be made up of, for example, many monasteries. --Carlaude (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that - but the category has been removed from both by the bot, seemingly without replacement. Kbthompson (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- and you fixed it! Kbthompson (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot proposal

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

If you get the chance, can you have a look at my two proposed lists of categories for the bot tagging (these to be tagged WP:LONDON, and these to be tagged WP:LT). Because the "London → Geography of London → Rivers of London → River Thames → Oxford" daisy chain means a lot of Oxfordshire-related categories were shown as subcategories of London, it really needs at least one other person to have a look before the bot goes live, to reduce the risk of a stream of complaints. – iridescent 11:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly problematic (London), I feel:
(LT) - looks OK. HTH, sorry been busy recently and not able to look in so often. Kbthompson (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed all four - anything in them with a legit reason to be tagged will also be in at least one other category. We will get some false positives come what may, but as long as we can keep them to a manageably low level they can be weeded when we go through the newly-tagged articles assessing importance. If/when you get the chance can you "sign off" on the proposal (no rush at all – we've done without it for eight years). – iridescent 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. I'm a bit dubious about Category:Hackney Members of Parliament; it's not in the form fooian-foo and the contents don't seem to represent a single constituency. BUT that is peripheral to the current exercise ... cheers Kbthompson (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Category:Hackney Members of Parliament, I'll ask User:BrownHairedGirl, who's responsible for the current structure of the MP categories, if there's a logic behind it. (At a guess it's because the constituencies have been repeatedly redrawn.) – iridescent 13:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - May 2009 Issue

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Summary: Whilst our application to HMRC has not yet been successful, we're after your views on the proposed New Chapters' Agreement, your suggestions for a Wikimedia UK conference next year and your ideas for initiatives to start! We also bring you updates on Wikipedia Loves Art, Other Chapters' Activities, Meet-ups and Press coverage.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. HMRC Application Status
  2. New Chapters' Agreement
  3. Wikimania 2010 (and beyond!)
  4. Initiatives
  5. Wikipedia Loves Art
  6. Other Chapters' Activities
  7. Meet-ups
  8. Press coverage

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir John Cass

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Great job! Amicaveritas (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Still working on it! Meant to do this a long time ago .... The various bits of the East End I've lived in, all have Sir John Cass, this and that. There's a lot of stuff on the 1713 general election that I've left out. He seems to have been on the side of the Tories (for making a treaty with France). It was a close election and the Whigs demanded a recount and scrutiny - a process that took several months - but, I've not been able to find any links to other material in wiki. So, perhaps it wasn't an enduring scandal. Kbthompson (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mayday mayday

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi KB. What's the recommended way of sorting out a mess like Zero option please? I mean quite apart from whether the rock band is notable or not, surely it shouldn't be in the same article?? Please advise (but don't be surprised if I'm apparently unresponsive - I'm away). Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Split into Zero option (band) and Zero option. I thought I could do it with a page move and reinstate the history of the former article - that didn't work. Maybe someone better than I can look at restoring the edit history. The later article looks like a candidate for Afd - unless someone asserts their notability - but that's a different story. Kbthompson (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
They're both {{orphan}}'d pages. Kbthompson (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for sorting that out. I agree that there's a question about the value of at least one article, but as you say that's a separate matter and it now does make sense structurally. Cheers! DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting my userpage

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks. Simply south (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nyet ne probleme! Kbthompson (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Er?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Her_Majesty%27s_Theatre&diff=293092774&oldid=289349168 -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was - but dealt with in text below. Or, we could just put all the text in the lede! More worrying, is {{infobox theatre}} seems to be up the spout. Kbthompson (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

June Metro

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've decided to fill in the empty job vacancy for the Metro for this month, feel free to correct any mistakes or add any missing information. Cheers! Crest of London (T|C|A) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

request for your eye

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I notice your interest in Hackney, and in listed buildings. Would you be willing to take a look at Newington Green Unitarian Church? Comments and improvements welcome! BrainyBabe (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance shows a very interesting article. There's one ref to BritHistory online - I strip mine it shamelessly! When I have a bit more time (time for bed now); I'll take a more detailed look. Glad to help. Kbthompson (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to help! I await your comments. Can you think of other editors who might help? BrainyBabe (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You could place a note on the WP:London talk page. Irridescent and SimplySouth have been active at GA recently, and have an interest in London articles. Hjuk(?) has a specific interest in Haringay - and history. You could also request a peer review to put it before a wider group; it doesn't tend to get much response, but is part of the route to GA. Do be prepared for a hard time on referencing, structure and content - but you've been around enough to know that already. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and leads so far. You may want to refresh the homepage periodically -- my DYK is on Queue 1, which makes it sounds like a British NASA. "Rockets ready to fire!" "No, after you, I insist!" BrainyBabe (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Selected pic for London

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

When it moves onto a new month for the selected portal, please could you also update the file name for the current picture (at least when i'm not available or if you remember to) at Portal:London/Showcase picture/pic? This is integral as it shows the pic in the banner. Simply south (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand it, but sure will do. Kbthompson (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand now ... Kbthompson (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Are the changes by User:TheRedPenOfDoom vandalism? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. The user appears to have a 'deletionist' approach to content - I'm assuming you mean the external links on various musicals. I'd say their inclusion could probably go either way. I think there's probably a strong argument for including 'stage agent' as it contains info about characters, vocal part and age of character that you wouldn't want to include in the article.
My tendency is to delete ELs which don't illuminate or add to the article. I'd revert - which you have - and engage in discussion; there is probably reasoning, rather than vandalism behind his edits. Kbthompson (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

East of Islington

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't suppose you would have access to a copy of Sam Taylor's book of this name, which is based on her columns for The Oldie? It is claimed that Cal Courtney is the trendy Reverend Right On. Can you find a reliable source for that? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but isn't it a satirical magazine? Is that a reliable source? cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Oldie is a general interest magazine, albeit with a grumpy stance. I believe ST's columns (which I have not read) poked gentle fun at life in that part of London. What I want to find is a reliable source that says she used CC as her inspiration. The fact that a given individual is considered interesting or important (eccentric/amusing/influential/different) enough to make it into a regular column in a national periodical is in itself notable. The columns and book are not, of course, reliable sources to prove that CC did or said any particular thing, just because his alter ego did. Some poetic license is to be expected. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
 

I saw from here that it's been exactly three years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 
Enjoy your cake with a nice cold glass of milk.☻
Why, thank you! Kbthompson (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Feliz Cumpleanos Wikipedianos! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you need something to wash that cake down. Hartelijk gefeliciteerd met je wiki-verjaardag!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks folks, when I came to do my final evening check - there was no internet connection! Probably due to the torrential rain last night. Here's to the start of another year. Kbthompson (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Intercession needed

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please refer to User talk:Giraffedata. Even though numerous editors have objected to his obsessive removal of the gramatically acceptable term "consists of" from hundreds of articles, he defiantly continues to do so. Your assistance here is appreciated. Contributions/209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Salford: a BIG thank you!

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The WikiProject Greater Manchester Award of Merit
Thank you for dedicating your time and effort to resolving the ambiguous links to Salford today. Your hard work has helped to put right a long-standing problem on Wikipedia for our readers and so I grant you this award! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
... and on my wikiBirthday too ... All my Xmas' come at once ... cheers Kbthompson (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Stamford Hill

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for tidying up my edit! --Redaktor (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't realise you'd jumped in and I was trying to tidy up the accretion of edits since I last looked at the article; and standardise the refs! The 'Adeni' needed to be mentioned - but what was there repeated too much of what was in other articles. Still trying to work out whether they meant "Stamford Hill" or "Stoke Newington High Street" for the location. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I really must thank you for your dedication and hard work in facilitating the change I've been hoping to push for some time now. I think you were a little reluctant to begin with, but I hope you agree this, and will be, a lasting solution to a longstanding problem on Wikipedia.

After Carlisle, I think I will propose formally at WP:ENGLAND etc, that we "fix-up" the remaining cities/settlements (eg. Winchester, Canterbury, Westminster) this way and put this to rest. BUT.... I know it means a lot of work.

That said, looking through your dabbing, it's striking to me just how bad and outright lazy some of the old links were to Salford and Carlilse, so it enthuses me to push for this. Anyway, regardless, it's another big thank you from me. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, there's too many things 'to fix' on wikipedia - without creating too many more. I'm down to about 150 - and taking the evening off! Editors rarely understand the 'meaning' of what they link to - there is always a lack of precision; but at fault seems to be the propensity of governments to name original settlement, parish, metropolitan authority, borough, and station - the same bloody name! 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Very well put. I really must try and get AWB and pull my weight too if I'm to be successful with this change. I think that's only fair. I also agree that the choice and arrangement of local government districts and counties was extremely confused. But at least we're doing our best here to sort out the mess. Thanks again, --Jza84 |  Talk  19:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Just put your name on the list. A couple of daze, approved. It's no problem, just time consuming. Kbthompson (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How embarrassing

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the Victoria disambig - I forget every time it seems - SatuSuro 13:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a problem; everybody does - that's the purpose of doing these AWB runs occasionally. Good luck. Kbthompson (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll need it I'll be in canada and the uk in a few months and then I'll really get my orientation as to place names with multiple locations confused :( SatuSuro 13:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you fly to Gatwick, you'll probably arrive in Victoria - so, good to know which one. Best Kbthompson (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand why my late father, a border scot with a long time spent in canada used to say London, England always with the qaulifier SatuSuro 08:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice please?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi KB. Am I going nuts? Please see this. I'm concerned, but I may be wrong; the NOR noticeboard has so far got me no reply; the editor won't answer and clearly prefers to edit on and not engage in discussion. Is there a problem, does it matter, should I just walk away and edit something else? - after all the wp principle is that everything gets sorted out sooner or later and this is waaaay outside the areas I usually inhabit ... I'd be very grateful for your opinion. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I issued a final 'cease and desist' - HTH. Can't really see that you can have done anything apart from what you have done. If it continues, you can drop me a message, or take it to WP:AIV for a potentially quicker response. All the best Kbthompson (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That's great, thanks for your help. I am really not sure what the editor is doing .. whether they think this is how you normally contribute, or what. I'll try to keep a bit of an eye on things. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I uploaded this image: File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg for use in the Harold Pinter article. Another editor disputes whether the image satisfies our non-free image policies, while I believe that it does satify the policy. Can you help? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the ongoing discussions regarding "featured article" reviews in the peer review initiated by Jezhotwells and comments made recently by Ssilvers, who posts just above? I have really run out of time to deal with these kinds of problems anymore. (I need some respite.) Thanks very much. --NYScholar (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the image help you sent me - I had no clue about uploading images with copyright and stuff. Once again, I appreciate your help. Thanks :D Jonny7003 (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem - but it's not only the trouble with the images you've uploaded. They need to have a clear provenance, and cannot just be 'something you found on the internet'. I do hope that helps. Kbthompson (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ThreeMillsLock.jpg)

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

  Thanks for uploading File:ThreeMillsLock.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No longer a 'future' building; it's been replaced by the real thing! Kbthompson (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
See Three Mills Lock Kbthompson (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

July Metro

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Category:Manor house

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you! — Robert Greer (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

no problem Kbthompson (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Barber-Surgeons.jpg

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barber-Surgeons.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs)

Commented here. Notion is kite-flying re-visitation of established policy. If that changes you can let me know ... Kbthompson (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - July 2009 Issue

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Summary: This month, we bring exciting news about our Wikimedia Foundation Grant, as well as news on our chapter Initiatives (get involved!) and our opt-out of Phorm. We also talk about Business Cards, a recent interview of our Secretary for use in university courses and Wikimania 2013 - which seems a long way off! We also include our regular features of chapter activities from around the globe, press coverage, and meetups!

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Wikimedia Foundation Grant
  2. Chapter Initiatives
  3. Phorm
  4. Business Cards
  5. Wikimania 2013
  6. Wikipedia in universities
  7. Other Chapters' Activities
  8. Press Coverage
  9. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hi there, Kbthompson! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Metropolitan - Issue 16

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

--DavidCane (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Nearest Over

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Nearest Over has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Health

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I hope you get well soon. Simply south (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I desire to associate myself with that expression of good wishes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys, it's a "just one of those things". Hopefully, it can be resolved quickly and cleanly. Kbthompson (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - August 2009 Issue

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Summary: Our Initiatives are starting to be developed - please get involved! In this newsletter, we also announce the results and prizes for Wikipedia Loves Art, and we bring you the latest on our Charity status application, in addition to our regular features on Other Chapters' Activities, recent Press Coverage and recent and upcoming Meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Initiatives
  2. Wikipedia Loves Art prizes
  3. Charity status update
  4. Other Chapters' Activities
  5. Press Coverage
  6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:1835 Eliza Vestris.jpg

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

File:1835 Eliza Vestris.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:1835 Eliza Vestris.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:1835 Eliza Vestris.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg is now available as Commons:File:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
File:1850LindseyHouseChelsea.jpg is now available as Commons:File:1850LindseyHouseChelsea.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

September Metro

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Simply south (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Congratulations on getting featured on the Main Page!! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I shall need to get on and put up content for P:L for October and November. Hopefully, I'll be out of hospital by December! You, Tim and others are at least as responsible for the success of HMT! Kbthompson (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Top reversion

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Congrats, you've just won my award for 'top reversion comment of the day' with this :-) Nice one.  Chzz  ►  21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not even my best work ... hopefully, I'll get another chance ... 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just a little message to say thanks, I didn't realise that TW wouldn't revert two edits in a row if they were different IPs, I've learnt for next time, regards, Captain n00dle T/C 16:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem - I was already looking to fix that one - so could see what was going on. I'm just glad you didn't template the IP who was trying to fix the intro - without realising they'd actually blatted it! Take care and good luck. Kbthompson (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - September 2009 Issue

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Summary: This month, our Initiatives Director explains our Initiatives, we update you on our Membership (including some new benefits for members!), keep you informed on our Charity Status application, and update you with our regular sections regarding Other Chapters' Activities, Press Coverage, and UK Meet-ups!

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Initiatives
  2. Membership
  3. Charity status update
  4. Other Chapters' Activities
  5. Press Coverage
  6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fort at River's Bend

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I realized that that discrepency would arise, however the author never gives enough evidence to distinguish. Besides it is during the period when people from Eire were settling the Scottish coast.SADADS (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I tried to understand the distinction while I was attempting to dab Scots; that led me to conclude that the article was not making the distinction - it might be appropriate to include a footnote that says the author conflates the east coast Scoti and west coast Gael. It was the latter who were descended/intermarried with Irish invaders. Actually - under Scoti - it says the term is synonymous with Gaels! Maybe needs an expert on iron age migration ... All the best Kbthompson (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing Removed for Book

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Kbthompson, I had a question regarding the recent removal made by Jmurphy86. My question is: Why was it removed? I read over Dreamguy's notes regarding spam, which I failed to review before I made my initial entries and apologized for doing so, and I noted to him that I would remove any external links or mentions of where the product is available. Other than that, I don't understand why an entry of a book that is similar to the topic cannot be included?

I appreciate your help. Thanks. Jmurphy86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmurphy86 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the article had been removed; and removed it from the template. It's not particularly good practice to have redlinks in templates. I did have a peek at the deleted article. It seemed to me to not say anything particularly substantive about the book, and much was derived solely from the blurb on Amazon. I would think that was why DG felt that you may have a conflict of interest in the matter. One thing wikipedia is not, is a tool for marketing
As to articles on books - generally the book has to have achieved some notability in its own right. More usual would be an article on the author (much easier to prove notability), with a note on books published by him. In this case, I would feel that an "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #65,233 in Books"; doesn't make for a particularly notable book.
Now, an article on either a book, or its author would need to be supported by references from reliable third party sources - say, a review in the New York Times indicating - to some extent - at least a national importance. I don't see that in this case, and I think {{AFD}} (article for deletion), or {{PROD}} (proposed deletion) was probably the correct decision. I'm not sure you'd have more luck with an article on the author - there are three books listed at Amazon for that name - and in wildly different spheres - so, probably not the same person.
I think adding links in multiple articles to Amazon on the book is probably what brought you to attention - it's not particularly helpful to link to such pages - a bit like forcing a google search on the reader. Adding links like that (particularly to a lot of articles at once) can get you blocked for spamming.
A note on the book in a relevant article may be appropriate; but it's something I would urge you to discuss on the talk page of the article before doing so. Editor's views on what is and what is not relevant to a subject can be very divergent, and wikipedia normally operates by consensus - ie discussing these matters. Wikipedia is not a collection of 'everything'; nor does 'everything' deserve mention - it may be relevant, but just not notable. Wikipedia is an edited encyclopaedia - and the project is looking to document things of significance. I think the best advice I can give to you, is read what others have written; get a feel for what the community thinks is important; and if in doubt do use the talk pages of articles to discuss matters. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

London Borough of Hackney lead

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I redistributed the introduction section to sections I thought more relevant because the information is about quite specific political and geographic issues. I think a good lead should be a more general introduction and summary to the article. I agree that the parts didn't sit very in there sections but was hoping a better copy editor might integrate them in the future. I read somewhere (can't find it at the moment) that to be a featured article the lead must only mention something if it appears further down, I think this guideline helps create a good lead. I would prefer something like the lead in the London Borough of Croydon article. PS Get well soon. Grim23★ 17:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - as you can see from the lead here, I may have little time at the moment.
The lead was written with reference to WP:UKCITIES - unfortunately, it got further expanded by someone who appeared to have done work for the council - I excised most of the flowery language and ref'd what was left. The 'governance' and 'geography' sections largely contain what is demanded by 'How to write ..' - I added a map to 'location' which probably makes the individual component settlements more clear - note they were in the article, but got exported to a separate article. I guess that needs revisiting. Can you leave it with me for a few days? I will be going into hospital next week - so then you can have complete freedom to pull it apart! All the best Kbthompson (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, thankyou for your swift response. Grim23★ 18:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

NowCommons: File:St Georges Langham Place.jpg

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion

File:St Georges Langham Place.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:St Georges Langham Place.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:St Georges Langham Place.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:St Leonards Bell.JPG is now available as Commons:File:St Leonards Bell.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Vicar St Leonards.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Vicar St Leonards.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Middlesex Filter Beds Weir-Head.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Middlesex Filter Beds Weir-Head.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Middlesex Filter Beds Weir-tail.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Middlesex Filter Beds Weir-tail.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
File:1920 White House Inn.jpg is now available as Commons:File:1920 White House Inn London Borough of Hackney.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Bromley Stop Lock.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Bromley Stop Lock.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

October Metro - better late than never

Simply south (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunderland

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Kbthompson, I've enacted the proposal for disambiguation of settlements named for cities for Sunderland (moving it to Sunderland, Tyne and Wear). I have anticipated the resistance to change, as best illustrated here.

However, R'n'B (talk · contribs) raises a valid point about fixing the 1,300 links to Sunderland. I don't have AWB and reading the WP:AWB page it's "broken". Is it a big job to do? If I obtained AWB, would you know how to get me up and running? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Kb is away from Wikipedia fot a while. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Ooops! So he is. My apologies. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Levellers

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't see the point of this edit with the comment "Fixing links to disambiguation pages using AWB" as Westminster is not a dab page. -- PBS (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is when so many links are to the modern settlement; and not to an appropriate article. Should I ever perform the exercise again, I shall think of something more appropriate than the AWB default. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Kbthompson is offline

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

He will be back in a week or two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is back ... but will remain quiet for a while ... Kbthompson (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi KB, I hope you are OK and your current encounters with the health system are not too onerous.

Can I just ask you a quick bit of advice please? I know you're busy/ill but you're on my Next Person To Bother This Week rota, at the top, and it's actually slightly less urgent than the moss growing on the roof of my shed, so a slow and leisurely response would be entirely appropriate. And if you really want, just ignore me and I will go away.

Here we go - when we make a link to an article on a foreign wiki, are we supposed to do something special (other than rewrite the target into English I mean!)? I've done it, but it just looks like an ordinary link and I wondered if there was something we were meant to do to flag it so it didn't frighten the horses. If you look here:

Samson_Raphael_Hirsch#Final_years - it's the last sentence, with the links to Mendel and Rahel. These currently only exist on de and I don't know if/when I will have time to make English ones so I thought, as they are not insignificant, that it was better to link to de than to ignore them. But in wp policy terms I may be wrong, or rather differently correct as I prefer to think of it.

All advice gratefully read, and please take care and get well soon. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi ya. Still very tired after the operation. A conundrum. Without looking it up in the style guide; I would guess that it is preferable to create an en:wiki stub - even if it doesn't say much; with an interwiki link at its foot - similarly adding an en:wiki interwiki on the de:wiki page. If you did that, then there is a good chance a wiki-gnome would come along and fill in some of the blanks. 8^)
You could add {{Languageicon}} - that might indicate somewhat what you're trying to do.
You might also want to read this.
HTH Kbthompson (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That's great, thank you so much for all the information and for already adding those tags to the article. Most helpful. I'm quite tempted by the stubs-and-links idea too, if I can find a minute. All the best with the post-op phase. Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
this may help create an article ... Kbthompson (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed, thanks very much. I've got a couple of links and I'm trying to find if we've got her biography. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:London - theatre thingy

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per this, I was looking for some WP:LONDON people who may be interested in theatre related stuff (as the theatre FAC group tends to be dwindling and/or non-existent (so there may be some London culture people out there)). This is the FAC. If you or anyone else would care to opine, that would be helpful. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit 18th century for me! Unfortunately, I'm also very short of time at the moment (see top). You might find User:Ssilvers and User:Tim riley - who both watch this page and churn out similar articles on musical theatre, may wish to comment. I've tended to comment extensively on theatre architecture, rather than individual plays. I'll try to 'pop in' as it were. Kbthompson (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nov Metro

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Simply south (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Early London Theatre

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Is a mess. If you look at the West End theatre article, and then the articles of some of the earliest theatres, you see lots of contradictory statements. None of them even mentions the Globe. It appears that The Theatre was first, although I am suspicious of the statement. Then Drury Lane. Then Sadler's Wells, then Haymarket. But if Sadler's Wells is not in the West End, why doesn't Globe fit into this equation? Can you or one of your theatre experts try to comb it out and clarify somehow? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And how does Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre fit into this? And why doesn't that have an article? See Lisle's Tennis Court. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Questions, questions ... the first purpose built theatre is likely to have been the Red Lion (theatre) - but it was too far from the city to be successful; and not intended to be 'permanent'. The Theatre, was indeed the first purpose-built-permanent theatre with a resident company! It was followed by The Curtain. There was a prior tradition of playing in inn-yards (see English Renaissance theatre. The others follow the reopening of the theatres after the interregnum.
The West End theatre article is a nightmare, and has always needed a desperate sorting out. They've been other priorities - particularly greenfield ones! It needs to be torn down and begun again. There's a lot of misc elements of POV pushing too. Kbthompson (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope you can do a quick brush-up of at least the first couple of paragraphs of it. It's impossible for the casual reader to get even a general idea of the chronology now, and lots of the articles on the major early theatres make conflicting claims. All the best - I'm off soon to gorge myself on Turkey and high calorie side-dishes, desserts, etc. It's a difficult task, but someone must do it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Lincoln's Inn theatre" is "Lisle's Tennis court". It seems mainly to have been referred to by the later name - or more usually, just as The Opera. I think it was Rich and the Beggar's Opera that put it on the map as a theatre; and then the money they made from that, paid for Covent Garden. The history after the interregnum is more related to that of the Duke's Company and King's Company - eventually that lead to the two theatre Royals. Kbthompson (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy food ... Kbthompson (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, now you're fed and watered, you can copy-edit it! Kbthompson (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not fed yet, so not unconscious! That's certainly better, thanks! Obviously, The article needs substantial expansion and referencing, but this is a good temporary fix. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anne Boleyn

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Adding the title in a main visible place is vandalism... How dumb is that?... Dgarq (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean this revert? - that's clear vandalism - you are probably thinking of this edit by user:Jeanne boleyn - apology? You should also probably familiarise yourself with Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) before changing it again, and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Kbthompson (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The second one, obviously. That's the one that was reverted. Dgarq (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
... and you've noted well that that revert was nothing to do with me? Kbthompson (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Only now, I've read the first correction I've seen and I "attacked" the last person who reverted anything. My mistake, I'm sorry. I don't know how could I be so distracted. I've been commiting this kind of stupid mistakes lately, maybe because I keep doing too many things at the same time. Dgarq (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

December Metro

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Simply south (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lesnes Abbey

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi - do you know how to pronounce Lesnes Abbey? It turned up on this page, and I'm vaguely aware you're active in London-related topics. Cheers, Lfh (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry there, absolutely no clue - I'd guess "les-knee" - but that is a wild stab in the dark! Kbthompson (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous possibilities, aren't there. I'll ask around. Cheers Lfh (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's any help, my wife agrees with "les-knee" - she used to live in south London, but never came across it! Kbthompson (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. The answer at WikiProject London was "less-ness". Maybe everyone has their own version! Lfh (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Xmas spam ...

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Geseënde Kersfees - Gëzuar Krishtlindja - Frohe Weihnachten / Fröhliche Weihnachten - Gleckika Wïanachta - Merry Christmas / Happy Christmas - Miilaad majiid - Shnorhavor Surb tsnund - Vrolik Kersfees - Eguberri on - Subho baradin - З Божым нараджэннем (Z Bozym naradzenniem) - Christmas nay hma mue pyaw pa - Sretan Božić - Nedeleg laouen - Bесела коледа (vesela koleda) - Bon Nadal - 圣诞快乐 - Sretan Božić - Glædelig jul - Feliz Navidad -- Gojan Kristnaskon - Häid jőule - Gleðilig jól - Hyvää joulua - Joyeux Noël - Frohe Weihnachte - Noflike Krystdagen - Bon nadâl - Nollaig chridheil - Nollaig shona - Bo Nadal - Nadolig llawen - Ahali tseli - Kala christougenna / Kala xristougenna - Mele Kalikimaka - Christmas sameakh- Krismas ki subhkamna - Boldog Karácsonyt - Naragsak a paskua - Selamat Natal - Gleðileg jól - Buon Natale / Gioioso Natale - Sugeng Natal - Merii kurisumasu - Assegass amegass - Noheli nziza - Noela we pîroz be - Bon nadal - Souksan van Christmas - Felix dies Nativitatis - Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus - Bun Denâ / bun Natâle - Noël esengo - Su Kalėdomis / linksmų Kalėdų - Schéi Chrëschtdeeg - Cреќен Божиќ (Srećen Božić) - Selamat hari natal - Christmas ashamshagal - Tratry ny Krismasy / Arahabaina tratry ny Krismasy / Arahaba tratry ny Krismasy - Il-milied it-tajjeb / Milied hieni - Nollick ghennal - Meri Kirihimete - Vrolijk Kerstfeest - Bouòni Calèna - God jul - Bon Nadal - Krissmas khojaste / Krissmas farkhonde - Wesołych Świąt - Feliz Natal - Bòn nové - Baxtalo Krečuno - Un Crăciun fericit - Noheiri nungi / webale Noheiri - C Pождеством Xристовом (S rojdestvom Kristovom) - La manuia le Kerisimasi - Bona pasca’e Nadale (logudorois) / Bona paschixedda (campidanois) - Срећан Божић (Srecan bozic) - Krisimas yakanaka - Chrismas joon wadhayoon - Vesele vianoce - Vesel božič / Vesele božične praznike - Dobro dedek - God jul - Noël ya furaha - Maligayang pasko - La orana e te noera - Veselé Vánoce - สุขสันต์วันคริสตร์มาส (souksaan wan Christmas) - Noeliniz kutlu olsun - Shuldyr Ymuśton - Z Rizdvom Hrystovym - Mừng Chúa Giáng Sinh (orthographe à betchfessîs) - Djoyeus Noyé

- to all from - Kbthompson (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portal pic

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I was not meaning it as sarcasm or anything to do with you at the hospital. In the past they have been spanning over many months for various reasons and so i was thinking about how the timing should be sorted. Simply south (talk)

There has been a suggestion at another portal applying for featured status - P:ENG, maybe - that the system should loop around a limited selection of articles. I'm loathe to do that; and when I clearly haven't had time for the update have just copied over the previous month. I know that's not satisfactory, but I think it marginally better than making that the default. Any suggestions, shared responsibility, brickbats and compliments - as ever, more than welcome. Kbthompson (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure at the moment. I am about to line up february with another building. Another thing is we need to encourage more people to use the portal. Simply south (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Next time I get a chance, I'll check every article has a 'this was a featured ...' SPAM on it. It is one way of advertising. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy new year to you too. Simply south (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello Kbthompson! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 0 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Rachel Lichtenstein - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple added - a simple check would show she was a collaborator of Iain Sinclair! Kbthompson (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New Year Metro

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

. Simply south (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List of people from Barking and Dagenham

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. You might be interested in List of people from Barking and Dagenham, that I am finally getting to grips with. Want to do something similar with the other 31 boroughs, but might take some time. MRSC (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done! I'm still tied up with health issues for the foreseeable future, so am a bit of a part-timer here at the moment. The best I've seen, and what I began to emulate at List of people from Hackney (uncompleteted!), was List of people from Southwark - but it is incredibly time consuming - and some multi-talented individuals are not so easily categorised. I'm not so sure what they're looking for in 'featured list' status - but that will probably define what we should aspire to - of course, it is helpful to get them all out of the articles - and would probably make the Hampstead article a third of its current size. 8^) cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Metro

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Another issue to be addressed is, please could people indicate in the next month at the feedback page or on my talk page whether they still want to recieve issues of the metro. A lot of newsletters seem to be going to redundant pages. Simply south (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Roberts

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this edit OK? I am not sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Roberts&action=historysubmit&diff=344003058&oldid=343972461

BTW, did you know that John Reed (actor) died yesterday? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems to have been 'looked at by other eyes' and resolved. Kbthompson (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Independent Theatre Society

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here's another one. Is this change correct?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_Theatre_Society&action=historysubmit&diff=344017882&oldid=264431238 All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a point of view. (From memory) Most of the 'theatre company' articles seem to use 'established in'; companies established may be a way to go ... maybe introduce a 'theatre companies established in' category (as Banks, Law Firms, Railway companies and eh, the Wrigley Company!) ... may assist in resolving any confusion - but then someone would have to dig them all out and populate the category. Probably need to take it up with WP:THEATRE. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Kb! Could you help me? An editor named Verbal is deleting stuff on my talk page claiming that it is copyright, which I don't think it is, though I'm not a lawyer. What can I do about this? Colin4C (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I put a note on Verbal (talk · contribs)'s talk page. You didn't mention you were in 'dialogue through edit comments' on Ghost. You're not in danger of WP:3RR, that applies over a 24 hour period - so, don't ... but the two of you do need to sort out your differences on the talk page rather than splatting the article. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
re your comment on my talk, C4C had been warned (not just in edit summary, but a notice on his page) and reverted the material. He is edit warring against talk page consensus and policy on the Ghost article, so the 24hr restriction doesn't really come in to it - he can still be blocked for editwarring. The warning is a polite reminder to stop problematic behaviour so that blocking does not become necessary. What Colin should do is establish consensus for his edits, but that is unlikely to happen as they are irrelevant to the article. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Not being a wiki-lawyer I am seeking guidance. What I did was - in good faith - extract some lines from a review someone had written on amazon, as an aide memoir and because I thought they were funny, and put it fairly randomly on my own talk page. I am not claiming that that the words are mine and I am not making any kind of statement with them - it was just a form of note taking, using my talk page as a pad. If I have violated copyright I am sorry about it. I agree with the sentiments of the writer of the review and do not want to do him any disservice at all. Colin4C (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, either party could be blocked for edit warring, please don't! The 3RR notice itself is strictly about edits over a 24 hour period. My point was that it really doesn't help to 'tag' an established user when you'd both get more from the exchange of views if 'communication' actually occurred. It seems to me you both have a point; and Colin has found reliable sources to back up the view. If necessary request more eyes to establish a consensus on the talk page; rather than going at each other hammer and tongs. It's just not helpful. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect about the edit warring notice, it points you to all the relevant material including slow edit wars. The text Colin has provided has no place in the article, as it is not about the subject of the article. Please do not enable edit warring or coatracking, etc. It has already been posted to WP:FTN, by me, and Colin's sources are not relevant to the topic (at risk of repeating myself). I also do not subscribe to DNTTR - it is better to remind than to block, and Colin was unresponsive to discussion - simply inserting the text that no one has supported and all have rejected. Verbal chat 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
That's probably the right place for the discussion; and yes it is helpful to bring it up there. I hope people can agree a form of words that is acceptable. DNTTR is about not escalating tempers; and stonewalling reverts are never helpful - by any party. I don't think you will find anything in my advice that is 'enabling edit warring'; I specifically requested that you both discuss the matter rather than 'flog' the article between 'bigendian' and 'littleendian' versions. It's not 'content counselling', but equally I don't want to end up 'relationship counselling'. Kbthompson (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mr Jingle

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article - people want to delete it - bad show - Jingle famous - great London character - example to us all.... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Jingle Colin4C (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Showcase article

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Following your suggestion I have proposed Uxbridge Lido on Portal:London/Articles/Vote. What do you think?--Lidos (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's good ... I apologise for not being very active at the moment - for medical reasons! Kbthompson (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

St Paul's, Harringay‎

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

9 March 2010. Kbthompson (talk | contribs) (Removed category Buildings and structures in Haringey (using HotCat))

Why. I wonder, remove the link on this page to buildings in Haringey? This is a building in that Borough! Ucypanp (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it's in Category:Churches in Haringey which is a subcategory of that category. David Underdown (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, DU ... where the over category is a member; the sub-category should not be repeated. This provides some organisation to the categories and reduces the size of categories that might otherwise be over populated. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.
 

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How do you change the title of an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryman19 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Making a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves is the safest place to request a change of article title. You're already on warnings; so discussion there would allow justification and discussion of the move you'd like to do. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Docks

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Sorry about cannon street, I see that an active station takes precedent.

However I see no reason why "Albert Dock, Liverpool" should be the primary article for Albert Dock when there are two other notable docks of the same name. At least one of which is still in use as a revenue earning dock rather than a shopping/office/entertainment centre. What is primary use would depend on what you are looking for.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could have used a bot to change the links in the list that link to Albert Dock. If you looked closely at the "what links here" page you would see that far more links go to Albert Dock, Liverpool than Albert Dock

I've hidden a list here (as a comment see edit page) if you want to use a bot to convert all links to "Albert Dock, Liverpool".Shortfatlad (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops My mistake - got the 'what links here pages' mixed up.
I'm not sure enough about Albert dock to make any suggestions. The relative notabilty of the London Royal Albert Dock (and common naming of.. )is unknown to me too. I would have guessed it may be what people in London may think of first when "Albert Dock" is mentioned. - but I don't really know.
I would suggest moving the page Albert dock to Albert Dock, Liverpool (principle of least astonishment ?) - this wouldn't mess up the redirects.
Thanks for cleaning up King George Dock, my excuse for my laziness is that I'm sort of bogged down in various article (History of rail transport in Finland has been holding me up for months) - I was hoping that other editors would slowly fix the links as they happened upon them (like ants) - Sorry you had to do that all yourself.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

April Metro

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

. Simply south (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Finchley and Golders Green constituency and its wards

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I think I may have spotted a discrepancy. On Election Maps the 'Golders Green' and 'Garden Suburb' wards appear to be entirely inside the 'Finchley and Golders Green' constituency. This seems to contradict the list at electoralcalculus. Could it be that the ward boundaries have also been changed to coincide with constituency boundaries? Thank you for your time. Grim23★ 19:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, parts of Garden Suburb ward were in the Hendon seat; they are now wholly within Finchley and Golders Green (ElectoralCalculus). Golders Green has gone the same way. The wards appear to have been reunited in the same constituency. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been an adjustment to ward boundaries; they tend to change at each local election in order to maintain a rough equivalence of the ratio councillors-electors. Have I made an error in reading the table? Doing so much of this makes it very easy to make an error! The rightmost column is the current situation, the preceding column the former. I appreciate you checking. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sockpuppet warning

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, KB. Someone stuck a sockpuppet tag on my talk page. I removed it. What should I do? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone helped me; thanks anyway. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, not greatly active at the moment! Kbthompson (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

May + June Metro

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Simply south (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:London Olympic Stadium (Nov 2007).jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:London Olympic Stadium (Nov 2007).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. Mosmof (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that was an artists' impression of the Olympic stadium; it's now becoming a reality - so, probably outlived its usefulness (note just to ensure archiving). Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:BBC-Ragtrade.jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

July Metro

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Simply south (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Her Majesty's Theatre

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Someone swapped the infobox photo for another, longer shot. I'm not sure it's better. See what you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Her_Majesty%27s_Theatre&action=historysubmit&diff=378605096&oldid=367699803 -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - been t'up norf .... I've never been satisfied with any of those photos. I've tried myself but they're no better - it's a big building and difficult to cram in. I really need to get down there with an architectural lens sometime - that would straighten it up a bit. Usually, I'd plump for a straight on view in an infobox; you can add the sides elsewhere (a bit like a passport photo); but really, it's a matter of personal preference. Kbthompson (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

So, should we repace the old photo or leave the new one? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what I'm saying is that there are arguments both ways .... not particularly helpful, I know. I don't think the replacement photo is so bad that it's worth arguing about ... Kbthompson (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it alone. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

October Metro

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Simply south (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Smoked Duck

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi KB, I recall you some time back dismissing talk of prevailing winds etc in relation to the East End as a canard. I came across John Evelyn's Fumifugium (or The Inconveniencie of the Aer and Smoak of London Dissipated) [1] (1661) recently. This calls for noxious industries to be located on the Greenwich Peninsula or failing that at the 'Town of Bowe', in regard of its scituation from our continual Winds may serve for the expedient, and a partial Cure. I have no idea if anything resulted from this - do you? Pterre (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this, and am now out of touch for a couple of days. Will take a look when I get back. Kbthompson (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it particularly undermines my case. It is a plea for a 'clean air act' within the cities; expelling industry to 5-6 miles distant - on the basis that any closer and it will blow back! The mention of Bow is not surprising, as it was the lowest existent bridge into Essex. There was indeed a metropolitan act of the mid-18th century that banned all noxious industry from the Middlesex bank. (And historically was the reason for the large number of chemical, soap, bone, etc, etc works situated at Stratford). He also makes a plea for closing Smithfield to live animals - which doesn't happen until the Victorian era. Interesting, he was definitely ahead of his time. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Edit request from Ssilvers, 23 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

{{edit protected}} Kb's funeral was yesterday in England. It has been nearly two weeks since he died.

Can we please remove the following from his userpage: "leave a message on my talk page (please bear in mind that I may not always be immediately available). "

I am certain that Kevin would not want useless and out-of-date instructions there.

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  Sentence removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kbthompson/Archive_4&oldid=1190239312"