User talk:Keith D/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Grade A listed buildings

Very well aware that I need to catch them but IOE doesn't let you search on them. Many thanks for the spot! And thanks for adding. (Excellent building too!) I have a list of the ones which I think are still Grade A listed, if you can add any! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Wheaver (talk • contribs) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)}

Thanks, I will have a look for the ones in my areas of interest, though will probably be next year now as I am winding down for the Christmas break. Keith D (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Less of an issue now, as the grading is visible in the Heritage Gateway. I've picked most of them up, and am continuing to check.Major-General Clanger (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I am still catching up from the break. Keith D (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of people from Manchester

You're absolutely right and I hadn't realised this was the case with List of people from Manchester. I didn't want to appear to be biased and so have culled the offending material. Most of those listed were not even from the city, but its neighbouring districts. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  16:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just pointing out the folly of picking out one list for attention when others are in a similar state. I think that all of the lists in Category:Lists of English people by location are in the same state though and probably all of the lists in parallel categories. Keith D (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday greetings

Thanks again for your help with those photo issues, Keith. May you and yours have the best of holidays. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Wexler

Thanks for clearing up my mistake! (I stub-sorted the Rabbi, and moved him to a better-formed article name, had a too-quick look at the politician and decided there was no primary usage... then looked back again after and decided I'd got it wrong.) PamD (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam or not spam?

I removed both of the following and my edits were reverted, and so I will be grateful for another opinion on:

• 1. A recently included addition to the page on "Nuneaton" has been nunoogle. Snowman (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  I think that one looks OK as there are no obvious advertising and it has been added to the text rather than the external links section. Though I am not a great fan of the method of linking to external web sites by embedding them. Keith D (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• 2. The "Ricoh Arena" article features actual dates of future events in the "Further events" section. Snowman (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  This one looks out of place as especially there are no references to support this and it is a bit of advertising. One of the dates is past now and needs to be changed to past tense. I would think that names should be mentioned but not specific dates for future events of this nature. I do not see any details on the individual artists pages which is where I would expect it to appear first if it is allowable. Keith D (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2009

Delivered January 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Ayton Shops, Pubs & Restaurants

Dear Keith

I've seen that there have been no comments as to if my website www.greataytonspar.co.uk should be added as a link against Great Ayton. I would believe that this website would provide visitors to Great Ayton an up-to-date feel as to how the village is now. I would hope you would now link to it.

I am also involved in the GACAP - Great Ayton Community Archgaeological Project who have a 4 year project to look at the history of Great Ayton and we are 18 months into the project. I am acting as their IT Consultant. We have recently agreed to use a Wiki website to document the history. I have just restructured one that had been set up by Dan O'Sullivan. The group now aims to get on adding files.

http://greatayton.wikidot.com/

It may be premature to add a link but please have a look

Regards

MikeeNewton (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Scott Waites' hometown

Hello Keith D,

Just wanted to inform you that Scott Waites has indeed relocated to Halifax. I help work for Darts Database and had informed Chris (the webmaster) of the change before Christmas as it was first mentioned during the World Masters final, but he has as yet failed to do so, so the website should read his hometown as Halifax its just that Chris is a bit slow with the update. I will drop him another mail shorty.

Cheers! Raphie (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I picked it up as after change Halifax was uncapitalised and checked the website to see if it was vandalism. Keith D (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem mate, I was a bit unsure about the move to be honest, but I just had a look at the Lakeside 2009 online programme availible online at the BDO website and it stats he lives in Halifax which I guess confirms his move. And I have informed Chris of the move, apparently I had a list ready for him and it turns out I never sent it to him at all! *blush* Raphie (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bolding

You know, Keith, I can actually understand continuous prose without you highlighting almost every other word in bold... and lighten up for Christ's sake, you seem to take yourself far too seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.125.205 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are going to have to explain that one as I have no idea what you are referring to. Keith D (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

new AfD

HI, I saw Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_North_Yorkshire and have added it to the WPY project page - not sure if anything else is needed. PamD (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Keith D (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Keith D. You have new messages at Beve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Leeds

Chrisieboy seems eager to push ahead for a merge, and so some more input may be required. I find most of athe arguments in favour of a merge to be flawed, and anonymous ip editors whose only other edits were vandalism seem to not be worthy of inclusion. Additionally, I don't see any formal proposal and perhaps that seems to be needed?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunford Bridge

Hi Keith! Skinsmoke has moved Dunford Bridge and its talk page to Dunford, South Yorkshire and rejigged the article with civil parish details. This is not required, Dunford Bridge is the correct Hamlet name and unique in the world. Additionally he has redirected Dunford to Dunford, South Yorkshire, whereas Warofdreams, a very knowledgeable Beurocrat from Sheffield had previously redirected Dunford to Dunford Bridge two years ago, as Dunford Bridge is the correct usage. I believe that the Civil Parish of Dunford includes areas that are still part of West Yorkshire, having been formed in 1938 from parts of the civil parishes of Holme, Newmill, Hepworth and Scholes. There was no prior notification or discussion on the talkpage regarding this move, can you reverse this series of page moves please. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the note. I have partially reverted the Dunford Bridge article and moved it back. I retained the distance conversions as that was useful. I have also changed Dunford, South Yorkshire into a civil parish article using the info supplied by Skinsmoke as if that is the civil parish then it is probably best kept separate, though I am sure that others may want to merge the information. Keith D (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will add some details to the Dunford, South Yorkshire article about is 'birth.' Richard Harvey (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

Is getting the alerts for a project as simple as adding {{User:ArticleAlertbot/Subscription|display=none}} to the main project page? It looks like a useful tool as sometimes articles slip through the cracks, and I'd like to sign up WP:GM for the updates. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes just add it to the main page of the project. Options for what is reported & displayed are available. See User:ArticleAlertbot/Subscription for details. Keith D (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in North Yorkshire

Hi Keith. Thanks for your message. Be a little patient! Computer crash half-way through editing meant I had to save what I'd done and re-boot. To see what's happening (though it won't be finished tonight) take a look at List of civil parishes in Nottinghamshire. Within the next day or so, each civil parish will be referenced to its former (pre 1974) local authority. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what is going on. Would be good to link the notes with a link rather than numbers as per the references using the {{Ref label}} & {{Note label}} templates. Keith D (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. I had tried that on a couple of counties but it looks an unholy mess and very difficult to read. That works OK when there's just a couple or so links for the same reference but when there are 30 or 40 (as there are with some former rural districts) your eyes begin to swim when you look at it. In the end, I undid the counties I'd done and reverted to this format, which is what others had started to do on a few counties. The only difference is that I've added citations to back the claims. I think you'll get a better picture from the history of List of civil parishes in Nottinghamshire and List of civil parishes in West Yorkshire

Skinsmoke, Have you considered doing the parishes as a sortable table? That way you could display them sorted by current council area, but have column for previous area, so readers could sort the list to see what had happened to a previous district? Makes more powerful use of the same amount of input. PamD (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been eavesdropping on this conversation. I think the idea of adding the previous district has some uses, it needs to be specified carefully, so that, say, it is clear that it is the former district that existed immediately prior to the local government changes on 1974 that are meant. The reason is that the former districts did have changes over time (and also, civil parishes changed over time as well.) Specifying the time at which the snap-shot is taken may inform people more about the nature of what is being recorded. I had considered doing something similar for Cheshire, but decided that some other information might be needed first (see Former local authority areas of Cheshire for a "work in progress" that highlights some of the kinds of changes in local government areas that I've alluded to above.)  DDStretch  (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some experimenting and you can have a single target with the templates from multiple locations but they all return to the first usage so not as useful as I initially thought. I rather like the PamD suggestion of a sortable table as that would be better than the current numbered cross referencing. It would then be easy to bring together current parishes for a particular former area which would be a nice facility to have. Keith D (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at producing a table version - see User:PamD/WYParishes for a first shot including Bradford and the first couple of Calderdale. I must also say that the existing format seems dangerously fragile! You're relying on the numbered notes staying exactly the same though they're numbered using "#": I can see some future helpful editor making some change, adding or subtracting a note, and leaving chaos. It would be safer to use real numbers for that list: if anything needs to be added it would either have to be "17(a)" or similar, or be added at the end, or necessitate the whole lot being renumbered, but at least it would be obvious that this is the case. PamD (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I included the "unparished" sections for completeness, but would prefer them to sort after Z rather than before A: does anyone know which character might work?("*" is sorting before "A"). PamD (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, unsure if the unparished bits are useful in the list, the rest looks fine though. I think if it is going in a table then the notes in brackets may be better to go in a separate column with a bit of explanation of what they mean. Another problem, that already exists with the lists, is that with many of the links go to the new area/place rather than the former area article. Keith D (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Flaming hell! What is it about North Yorkshire that's brought such a response? Thanks for the ideas, suggestions and experiments. I quite like Pam's table, but am not sure I could get my head round doing it at the present time - I'm still learning on Wikipedia (though rapidly) - a couple of weeks ago I couldn't even get citations to work properly!

I started on the List of civil parishes series because I could see that some of the counties were inaccurate, whilst others had more information than others. My main aim was to try to get them all to the same standard, as they all started life as part of List of civil parishes in England, which got split into ceremonial counties when those who originally started the list realised what an enormous job they had taken on

At this stage I think the first priority is to check the parishes on the list (in some counties, the lists have clearly been sourced from a list of parish council clerks found on a district council website and include grouped or joint parish councils as if they are statutory civil parishes), and get the former authorities listed (a small number of districts had been noted, but in very few cases - possibly only a couple of metropolitan counties - had the full county been listed) and also get some citations listed (practically none had any citations at all!).

I've been working from the bottom of the list upwards (from Worcestershire upwards) so, having reached North Yorkshire, there's a hell of a long way to go just to get this basic information sorted - my guess would be about another 6,000 plus parishes to do assuming 200 parishes per county (and bear in mind North Yorkshire alone has 700!)

Basically, what I'm saying is there's only so much one guy can do! I don't pretend the articles will be perfect when that part of the task is completed. Without thinking too long about it, I would suggest :-

• The introduction on each page needs beefing up to explain a little more about what a civil parish is, and what town status or parish meeting means
• Citations need to be added referring to various statutory instruments creating new parishes, merging parishes, or changing the names
• On the appropriate pages references (and citations) are needed referring to the new powers to create civil parishes in Greater London
• As ddstretch suggests, clarification of the former authorities needs adding, making it clear that these were the predecessors in 1974 when all civil parishes, urban districts, municipal boroughs and county borough were technically abolished and replaced by the new structure
• As suggested, tables (and maybe even maps and pictures) would help bring the lists closer to Wikipedia ideals

On top of all this I think we need to keep it all fairly simple, so that it doesn't all become too confusing (perhaps an impossible task). In any case, just to get everything to the present state of the later counties, without further improvement, will take weeks, or probably months!

Incidentally, I understand what PamD means about the fragility of the format, but am not sure it is as fragile as perhaps it may at first seem. I personally thought it better that the former authorities were listed alphabetically than the existing style on some pages where they were numbered and listed from the top of the page. I soon found out that if you added an authority, you had to renumber the list manually! That's why I included all former authorities (including those currently entirely unparished) so that, if at some future time a new parish is created in an area at present unparished, it will not be necessary to add a former authority, and consequently there should be no need to renumber the list.

In conclusion, I'd welcome some help, assistance and input on what has become something of a project if anyone can find the time. The lists can and should be improved. However, I think this should be an incremental thing and priorities need to be agreed on getting all 48 county lists moving to the same stage of improvement at roughly the same time. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A thought: one should be wary of only relying on lists of parish clerks for civil parishes, because in some instances, although the civil parish exists, no parish-level administration is in place for it, which means that the local authority next up in the hierarchy (normally the district or the corresponding authority to the district) makes no arrangements for it and merely retains the responsibilities that would normally have been allocated to the parish-level administration. The situation exists in Cheshire within Chester (district) for example (see the tables in that article.) Although the relevant civil parishes mentioned there are unreferenced, I am in the process of deciding how best to reference them: The most recent 1:25000 OS survey map clearly shows the civil parishes exist, the official website which shows current and future parliamentary constituencies can be displayed with civil parish boundaries marked in, and they are all there (though it would be difficult to reference it specifically as it uses some kind of flash or other dynamic content that isn't reflected in the web address), and Youngs, F. A. (1991), Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England), London: Royal Historical Society, ISBN 0861931270 lists them, and I can find no evidence that they were abolished. I will probably use a combination of the sources I've just mentioned for each of them. Email to the local council throws no light on them other than that they can confirm that no arrangements have, according to their records, ever been in place for them, and so they might function as unparished areas, even though they are not. Consequently, this has told me that one has to be quite careful in one's choice of sources.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Architecture of Leeds

I intend to act upon the GA nomination for Architecture of Leeds and resubmit (possibly in couple of weeks). It has been discussed to broaden the page to include housing in different areas and I intend to work on this, as well as to add citations and look over the licencing of the photographs. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will keep an eye on it, I can probably help with formatting, layout etc. but not with content. Keith D (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom locations

Thanks for your help with sorting Rodden on List of United Kingdom locations: Ri-Ror. Do you know if there is any way of sorting all of List of United Kingdom locations lists to find red links relating to a specific county? I think we've got an article or redirect for almost all of them in Somerset - but it would be great to have a way to do a quick check.— Rod ^talk 08:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I do not know a way of locating red-links you could ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to see if there is a way of obtaining a list of red-links from a page. Would be interested if there is a way to get a list. There is also the problem of a blue link going to the wrong page but that is another problem. Keith D (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Stowe

Hi Keith - you asked about the Yorkshire connections for Marilyn Stowe. I have now added this page to Category: People from Leeds; also, I see that PamD has added other Yorkshire connections to the page. Apologies for not adding these earlier - and before I forget, thanks for my welcome to the WikiProject Yorkshire group. WinslowBoy (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I thought that there had to be a Yorkshire connection, but had not the time to dig around to find it. Keith D (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

date / year in refs

Keith, I spotted that you've tweaked a couple of refs I've added. I use the "refTools" gadget to make refs, and I've just seen here that under "Future features" he includes "Better date handling - [...] if the user doesn't give a full date, use |month= and |year= instead of |date=". Until then, as "year" isn't offered in the fill-in boxes, I can't see myself remembering to go and fix it manually every time I add a reference, so I'm afraid I'll carry on sticking years into the "date" field until he improves the gadget! PamD (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See also this edit where I've asked the author of the gadget if he could make "year" available for book refs. PamD (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on that to get tool improved, I use the cite plugin for Firefox and that does not have a date field so I have to keep adding it, which is a pain in the neck. I do tend to ignore your changes in the watchlist unless part of a series of changes that have happened to an article, so I may not pick them up. Keith D (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Park club

So when did the Park Club ("Woodlands") become an Indian Restaurant? I know that there is an "Aagrah" in an old garage 100 yds away from it, but I am surprised to hear about the club - after all, Woodlands has now lost the Cabbage, the New Club, and now this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Judge (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not know what you are talking about, how about giving me a clue by supplying a link to the article in question? Keith D (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Update to Trivia section

Apologies for my mis-assumption with the edit of the WiKi -- attempting to add a counter-point to the trivia section that's more in favor of Bradley Squadron...

Hoping that we're now connected the correct way, I have a confirming item is a picture of the news article can be viewed on my persoal picture space: http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~donshave/Images/Jamie.html

Please tell me how to put the comment(s) back? Regards, Don Shave Donshave (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about my revert of an IP edit to Army Apprentices School, Harrogate article. You can look at the history of the article, under the history tab, and select a particular version to look at the text and from there you could revert out my change to actually put text back in the article. If you do put it back do not put back the dividing lines which is what drew my attention to the inserted text. I would also ask that you add a reference for the addition quoting the date/issue of the article involved.

The wiki article is in a very poor state and needs to be completely rewritten hence the clean-up tag at the top. Ideally the trivia section should be got rid of as we do not generally have trivia sections in articles. Keith D (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Keith -- have restored said editorial trivia sans dividing line. Would also be interested in helping to bring this more up to date... is there a forum?

Donshave (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, there is not really a forum, for the article in question you can use the talk page for questions/help on the article but probably you will not get too much input. If the changes are minor then go ahead and change the article. If they are major then I would suggest taking a copy of the article, as it stands, into a sub-page of your user area (you will need to create the page) and work on it there. Do not change the main article again while you are doing this, when you are ready then drop me a note and I can bring it back over the top of the real article assuming it has not changed since the copy. You will not keep getting reverted out while working on it away from the main article. Take a look at some of the links in the welcome message to see what we are looking for in articles and may be look at some of the featured articles to see examples of the best articles on wiki, those in Education section would be suitable models for this one. Keith D (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2009

Delivered February 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 08:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the page Southey and the associated page. -Zeus- 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)

No problem. Hopefully all of the links should also move when the template transludes filter through. Keith D (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon Vandal

Hi Keith! I noted that you had reverted an edited on the Brighouse article that removed content (its on my watch list), then placed a message on the editors talk page;- User talk:78.144.216.48. I have just reverted an edit, removing content from the Huddersfield article. Whilst placing a message on that editors talk page:- User talk:78.148.251.130, it reminded me of another vandalism edit to the Marsden, West Yorkshire by a similar IP address I warned in November, see:- User talk:78.149.75.79. I have checked the IP addresses and found they all belong to the same company:- Opal Telecommunications Plc in Manchester. I have therefore placed an IP ID tag on the three talk pages with a comment that they appear to be the same editor. If so then it may be wise to block them all as vandalism only / sock puppet accounts. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional vandalism to the Brighouse article today is from the same IP range by a new anon editor 78.148.142.126, which is also Opal Telecommunications Plc. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Keith - apologies for my bum Ingleborough Cave edit. Mea Culpa.--Langcliffe (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fulfordgate

Thanks for pointing that out, good to know someone actually reads the articles I write! New Brighton A.F.C. is the correct option so I'll change accordingly. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for picking up that I had incorporated a map and the coord template into the service station infoboxes, and thanks for editing further articles to include this :). As I'm not a local up there (forgive me for presuming you are from Yorkshire!), I don't have as much knowledge of the service area articles as I would like, if you feel that you can expand the articles in any way, it would be great! Strensham services is an article I feel I have got up to scratch, and I have a progress table at User:Jenuk1985/MSA Progress, as you can see I potentially have a lot of work to do! Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I added the co-ordinates to a few service station articles as they were tagged as {{coord missing}} and as there was no documentation on the infobox template I did not twig that there was a co-ordinate field there. I just went back and re-located the co-ordinates for them when I saw your move of one of the ones I had done. You are right in presuming that I am from Yorkshire but am no longer living there as I am based in the West Midlands. Though I am looking after the Yorkshire WikiProject and hence my pick up of Yorkshire related articles. I will add information if I can but I am currently working my way through Yorkshire School articles adding infoboxes and co-ordinates so that will take some time. Keith D (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for no documentation on the infobox yet, its still a relatively new template and I'm still "evolving" it, the location_map, lat and long parameters I only added yesterday. And hello from someone else in the West Midlands region (Bromsgrove). Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

External links

Thanks for that on the various "List of civil parishes..." pages - I hadn't noticed the second capital - will correct the rest over the next week. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just picked up the ones that happen to be on my watchlist. Keith D (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa!!!

Hey

You may remember me from Wikiproject:Warwickshire

I just looked at your edit summary.

YOU ARE A MACHINE

De Mattia (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh page vandalism

Hi Keith, seeing your very proactive step of protecting the Alexander Graham Bell article, I wounder if you could review the edit history of the Charles Lindbergh article to see if it qualifies for a similar status. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Looks like some one else has protected it for a week since your message. If there are any problems following this let me know and I will take a look again, the article is not on my watchlist so I will not pick-up on vandalism. Keith D (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Keith, for welcome back, I'll not be chasing your edit count for a bit ;) as cutting back a bit on here till I sort out my other project. Got a few 1000 photos to add and 8500 red links to fill ( if i stop creating more). Will tidy a few articles up as I search for info but cutting back on search for Wikiproject xyz articles and vandal patrolling as soon loose several hours. I might get round to creating a few missing Wikipedia articles soon from my Tractor Wiki ones.

Keep up the Good Work on Yorkshire and other areas Keith - Cheers BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2009

Delivered March 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Middlesbrough and Yorkshire

Hello Keith.

How are you doing?

I am new to Wikipedia and am looking to learn a lot from a vet such as yourself.

I have a question about the Middlesbrough page:

Last night I corrected some indisputable factual innacuracies. It seems that someone has undone the changes - maybe it was yourself who removed my changes.

If it was you can we have a discussion about why the page should state that Middlesbrough is in the county of North Yorkshire? Is there some pro Yorkshire agenda at work attempting to hijack the page to further the aims of a small group at the expense of truthful information?

Because my family has lived in Middlesbrough for generations I am keen to see factual innacuracies removed where possible.

Let me know your thoughts.

Regards

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olive66 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For ceremonial purposes Middlesbrough is in North Yorkshire though it forms part of the unitary authority of Middlesbrough (borough). I would also avoid the use of Teesside which is rather nebulous area and relates mainly to a defunct borough. Keith D (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Gliese IT

Thanks. -- samj _in^out 19:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Leyland Trucks

Hi Keith can you give your expert opinion the Leyland Trucks articles recent additions. I've tagged it as 'Advert' as a Large section reads a corporate PR, and 'Unreferenced section' (I also moved it down the page as it was above the history section). The Key people section is also of concern (again look like lifted from press release) & inappropriate in scope any way. (I've added a comment on the talk page expressing concerns). Ref have now been added but source is Leyland Trucks web site !! and editor had also added images which look like corporate publicity material so it is WP:COI if editor works for Co or there PR Co. in my opinion. -- BulldozerD11 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the Key people section as that was pure CV and added nothing to the article, I have also changed the tag to {{Primarysources}} to request third party references. I have my doubts about the images and the persons ability to release them into the public domain unless they are the PR person for the company. Keith D (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Keith for looking at/fixing article. (so many options for these tagges for issues with articles I always a bit unsure which to use, and stick to the few I can) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been digging around about image problems but cannot find out how to handle that one. Unsure if the person has the right to release them in the way they have. Keith D (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I plumped for raising the images at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions so will see what they say. Keith D (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking through related pages Editor has been informed about Copyright issues on their talk page:- here but has not replied on his page but has [User_talk:Snigbrook|here], claiming "ownership" which raise definite WP:COI issues with additions to article IMO. perhaps See if any response to deletion of key people section ( an IP editor had been warned for vandalism after deleting the 1st PR bit by the looks as well)- BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(Indent out) Looking deeper into info at a web Page here on the DAF web site linked to news item on the Leyland Daf web site on the subject of waste about Zero waste to land fill The web site says its contents is all copyrighted here at Legal notice. Then this other section of the site DAF.com also has loads of images for download - here is a similar image to added to article, but page has no copyright info on the pop up page offering down load. The Legal page (refered to above) includes this statement "The items referred to in this paragraph may be copied for private use" which mean that they are not PD and as wikipedia GDFL liscens allows commercial use of info (wikipedia content), and private use only is a restricted use the two are not compatible licensing statements for the works. (in my interpretation of the rules of the GNU Free Documentation License under which wikipedia contributions are released by editors). - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On advice from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions I have now tagged the images and requested that the user supply appropriate information. If they do not do this in the next week the images will be deleted. Keith D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see you have. I was concerned by claim by editors as any body can claim they 'own' the rights but without proof for material on commercial sites its open to people with the best intention making claims they are possibly not in a position to make legally and then another dept denies /retract it when they realise the full meaning. Especially when corporate sites has strongly worded Copyright ownership assertions posted on it.

But the other day I found a firm that clearly offered their logo's for use with just a restriction on derivative works, changing its colour or look (which obviously is sensible/correct for a register corporate logo) as then the media have HQ correct logo to use in adverts and promotional materail withot scaning or requesting them evert 5 minutes for each usage, A most enlightened stand point ! . So wait and see if there is a response now -- Any way back to article creation BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Viola

Thanks for tidying up my references and copyediting - it seems I've been looking at the bloody thing for so long I can't see the wood for the trees anymore! pablo_hablo. 20:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi Keith! I have again reversed vandalism on the Holmfirth and Holmfirth Flood articles by the new anon that you have also warned for vandalism:- User talk:91.110.34.121. Having also gone through and reversed a huge amount of unrequired edits and overlinking, red wikilink changes etc by the editor I suspect that the account is being used for vandalism / disruptive editing only. As the account appears to be a static link to an orange mobile phone I also fail to see how this could be used for serious constructive editing. Would it be appropriate to place a vandalism only account block on the editor before it gets any further? Richard Harvey (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably a short block to start with to see how they react would be in order on next vandalism following final warning. I have above articles on my watchlist so will block if they change them again when I am online. Keith D (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now worked my way through and reverted 22+ articles of multiple edits by him, including reverts to your reversions of his edit on the Holmfirth article. I put him up for blocking on the Admins intervention against vandalism page and he has had a 12 hour block placed on him. With 22+ random articles I don't think its simple vandalism as he appears to be be going from one article to another by wikilinks. Some of the reverts I have done are of edits by Jza84 and I know his edits will be good! Richard Harvey (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I would have gone for a slightly longer block but will see if they get the message when the block expires. Though looks like I will be in bed when the blocks expires so may not be around to catch them again. Keith D (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

HI Keith. The IP is back editing in the same vein. I have reverted four articles this morning, Somehow I get a feeling a substantially longer block will be required. I have seen this type of editing before where they stop and do some edits that seem okay then start to alter wikilinks to misdirect readers etc, leading to a lot of wasted time checking their edits out by editors with an ability to spot their method of working, (like Yorkshirian's style). Richard Harvey (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nearly missed your message here. I have blocked them for 72 hours for disruptive editing so see if they get the message this time. Keith D (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barmston and Fraisthorpe

Hi Keith. I note that you created the original page for Barmston and Fraisthorpe. I can find no evidence that the parish has been renamed from Barmston, which is the name shown at Ordnance Survey, Census 2001 and A Vision of Britain : Barmston Civil Parish. Do you have any evidence of a name change, or am I OK to change the page to Barmston? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The same applies to Thwing and Octon which, as far as I can see, is actually called Thwing. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Sledmere and Croome, which appears to be called Sledmere. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And Ellerton and Aughton, which appears to be Ellerton, plus Everingham and Harswell, which appears to be Everingham. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The individual places will already have their own page as I kept the places and the parishes separate unless they had the same name. Thus Barmston & Fraisthorpe will have individual pages. The names came from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council gazetteer information on the names of each of the parishes, I know they differ from the name given by the census site who usually only go with a single name rather than the double name. Looks like the web site has been restructured since I last looked and the list of parish councils now appears here. Keith D (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I suspect I know what's going on here as I have come across something similar in Essex. It looks like the parish councils have changed their names but the district council has failed to follow the correct procedure in notifying the Secretary of State, Ordnance Survey, Electoral Commission and Office for National Statistics, as they are legally required to do. I suspect that, legally, that means that the parish names remain unchanged, whatever the informal practice may be. I will contact East Riding of Yorkshire Council to see if they can shed any light on this. It also appears to apply to Fangfoss with Bolton, which appears to be Fangfoss and Hayton and Burnby, which appears to be simply Hayton, and Yapham cum Meltonby, which appears to be Yapham. Similar confusion appears with East Cottingwith, which seems to have been renamed from Cottingwith and North and South Cliffe, renamed from South Cliffe. Not to mention Lissett and Ulrome, which still shows as Ulrome. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I did find some errors in the gazetteer when I was doing the area and contacted the parish councils to confirm things. From memory Cammerton was in the wrong parish and some of the places near Driffield where in the wrong constituency. They also missed out some places such as Winestead. I have not seen any updated Gazetteer produced by the council since I used it to create the articles. I think most of the articles are over 2 years old now when I went round creating all of the missing articles and there were a lot at that time. Keith D (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The change you make to Kirk Ella & West Ella is also against the Council list. All of the East Riding parishes and places as far as I know are correct to that list. I have reverted to the council list for now. Keith D (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tobyo1

Tobyo1 has commited numerous obvious bad faith edits and vandalism. Request you deal with him. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have blocked for 24 hours as a first block, though if the sock can be proved this should be changed to indefinite. Keith D (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Baxi

Hi, Keith could you cast your 'expert' eye over the Baxi article, I reverted a whole string of edits by a single purpose user, as removed most of source material, and replaced with PR like un-sourced info. I left notes on their user page, and the talk page to discus issues, with some policy links. They have now added back material with refs, but as I wrote a lot of the original expansion from stub, Id like somebody else to review it, as I dont want to get into an edit war or not assuming Good faith. (BTW I'm reasonably happy with new version, just a few bits are PR like to me). Its Not urgent as not a high profile article IMO. - Cheers BulldozerD11 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick look and does not look too bad, though could do with a copyedit for tone in places. I have done some formatting of the references though think that more could be done on these, especially the stand alone one which needs to be put into inline format against items it refers to. The lack of wikilinks is probably the most concerning thing and should be done if nothing else. Keith D (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keith its now had the PR & CV type stuff added back, but took note of the bit about refs for some of it. But a lot could be copy & paste stuff will look indepth at a later date at wikifing then. - Thanks BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to my version and ask user to discuss changes on talk page. Some of the detail may be useful but not in the format presented. Keith D (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Password - need to find

I have logged into my wikipedia account on my computer so that now I never have to log in (it s always logged in). Only problem is I have now forgotten my password and I don't know how to recover it.

De Mattia (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That depends if you set up an e-mail address when you created the account see here. Though if you are still logged in and have not set an e-mail address then set one by Preferences first. Keith D (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry. I found out and i now know it De Mattia (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I always see your name popping up on articles about Cleveland. You make very good stylistic edits and often clean up the mess I leave behind. Thank you :) Computerjoe's talk 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - nice to get some recognition occasionally. Keith D (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did the cool edit counter go

There used to be the counter on my (and everyone else's) contribs page.

It was the one by toolserver i think and it had your total edits, deleted edits, top 25 most edited articels and user talks and the percentage of how many edits u done on each type of page.

Can it come back as i think that it was the most effective counter ( a lot more so than all the ones that there are there at the moment)

De Mattia (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsure which one you mean, there is this one that is still available edit count which gives you a view of edits made per month and the namespace. Keith D (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also a summary tool here Keith D (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks De Mattia (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coach & Horses Ground

Hi, Keith I dont think the Coach and Horses Ground really falls under WP Yorkshire area other than indirectly by WP Sheffield being a sub area, as its located in Derbyshire. Its under WP Sheffield as its now the home ground for Sheffield F.C.. (same as would not list every thing in the regions under WP England or UK as well)  ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I did think about it but thought that to cover Sheffield F.C. properly the ground would need to be covered as well. If you think that the project should not cover the ground as it is in Derbyshire then it can be removed. Keith D (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Was not sure if it was a considered addition, an erroneous one like I occasional threw in by mistake ;) when i was doing multiple projects, or if you were adding all the WP Sheffield articles. Just thought I query it Keith in case it was an error. I leave it up to you. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just working trough some categories under the South Yorkshire tree. These have not been tagged as yet for the Yorkshire project so if you have any free time you could do some tagging. Keith D (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK Keith when I'm working on any relevant articles I add them, but at the moment I'm mainly just keeping an Eye on my watch list (and doing the odd vandalism revert) and editing Tractor & steam related articles. I Should really assess some of the Lincolnshire articles I added to the project, and write the missing old Sheffield companies ones I started the navbox for as well. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BSTemple seems to have got stuck in tagging and assessing on the Lincolnshire villages as I keep seeing them pop-up in the watchlist, I expect the article count to grow the next time the bot runs. Keith D (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

North, East, and West Hull

I've noticed there are a few links to North Hull, East Hull, and West Hull which are currently non-existant. I was wondering if you figured it be wise to create these articles, create redirects to Kingston Upon Hull, or delete the links? Neu_tralle 12:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think that the link should be deleted as I do not think that the team is notable enough to have a separate article. Though it could refer to an area of the city so that could be confusing. Generally red-links are not a problem if they point to a notable topic. Keith D (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I first thought I would create a redirect for each, but there would be no point in linking to a page that will redirect back. I shall remove the links. I do not feel they are noteable enough. Neu_tralle 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I did have another thought, that may be a Sport in Kingston upon Hull type article could be made which could be pointed at with details of the teams on, but that would need some work. Probably something like Sport in Sheffield. Keith D (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15