User talk:Keith D/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Editwar

Hi Kieth! I'm just wondering if User:84.69.110.208 and Rickyrichmond are sockpuppets of Teesandhumber to enable him to get round the 3RR and EditWar against consensus? Richard Harvey (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They may well be as 2 of them are newly registered uses and heading for the same articles. Keith D (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've IP tagged User:84.69.110.208, its from Energis in Leeds. I've also now tagged all three accounts as suspect of Sock puppetry and infringing 3RR. If they continue then a 24 hour block would be suitable, which would then confirm Sock puppetry use. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have raised a sock investigation here. Keith D (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up. Looks like one was indefinitely banned and the other got a 31 hour ban, will see what happens when the ban expires. Keith D (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

England, UK

Dear Keith, I've just stopped short of 3RR on a page I watch and I see you concerned at least once with the same kind of thing. Is there policy on this somewhere? It just seems ... well, I won't go there; and in general I'd rather walk away than get caught up in some crusade so I probably won't do much more. But I just wondered if you knew if this had already been gone through somewhere, or is it a new thing, or what? I mean, I know it's not wrong per se but I do find it a very difficult area. Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can probably guess who is involved in adding it, User:darkieboy236, who seems to be on a crusade to add it to every article. I have just stopped short of 3RR on Crank Halt railway station with them over UK and use of {{coord}} which is not required as the work is done by the infobox. I cannot put my finger on discussion but as far as I can remember the current consensus is that we should normally use the constituent country - so England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are sufficient rather than use UK or qualify with UK. I have been removing when I find it, especially when it is linked after one of the countries which is unlinked as per the WP:OVERLINK activities which seem to want to get rid of all links to common countries. Keith D (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see others are using the overlink reverting see this edit summary. Keith D (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yesssss ... thanks very much for that. I totally don't get it, or perhaps I don't totally get it. What I do know is that it's the sort of thing I can't stand on wp, so having made my pathetic defence of Lesley Garrett (though actually she can stand up for herself pretty well) I think I will stroll nonchalantly away and leave others, of stronger backbone, to worry about it. I mean, it wouldn't actually destroy the encyclopaedia if they did every article, but it is mighty annoying. Ho hum, and thanks for the reply, and have a good weekend. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up that this user is still at it, just check the contributions. Jeni ^(talk) 17:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just reverted out some of them, but they are also an admin and should know better especially with the edit summaries! 86.141.160.246 (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I know we had discussion on this at some point but cannot put my finger on it. I have ask on WP:ENGLAND to see if someone can point to the discussion. Keith D (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, he isn't an admin... he is just posing as one! He added the administrator template 4 days ago. Surely that's worth a block? Jeni ^(talk) 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out I had assumed good faith when I looked at their user page and did not check. I have followed your note on their user page with a removal request or a link to their WP:RFA. I expect it to be removed or I will block them for a period. Keith D (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It was my good faith in administrators that made me question if this user was even an admin, causing me to look deeper! Jeni ^(talk) 18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Geocaches

Hi.Is there any sort of policy on geocache additions yet? Cleckheaton has gathered a few today. Could spread like wildfire. --Harkey (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not heard of it before, I would guess that we should not do it as looks out of place. You could try asking on WP:VPM best I can come up with, the other would be WP:ANI but need to know if it has been discussed first.

I thought that you were on holiday until next month until I saw East Riding of Yorkshire changes. Keith D (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought they looked a bit like spamming. I go on Saturday so decided to try to catch up with the East Riding jobs before I went, then maybe try to put in for peer review on Friday.(The article, not me!!)--Harkey (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Distinctly spammy - no apparent relevance to article - have removed them. Those 4 edits are the only edits from that editor. PamD (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good, asked at WP:VPM too. A search revealed a few in articles from the USA but they were more integrated into the text.--Harkey (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

East Riding PR

I've been, and gone, and done it! As it will probably take a while for the reviewers to get round to it, I should be back to do the cleaning up. --Harkey (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Still pending

Keith, please look at:

• Template talk:RailGauge#Please add & insert some more
• Template talk:RailGauge#Add   to templates
• Template talk:RailGauge#Add parameters
• Template talk:RailGauge#Minor adjustments

and help Slambo

Peter Horn User talk 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• First query 724 mm (29 in) or 2 ft 4.5 in (724 mm) should this be 28.5 in rather than 29 in? Keith D (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Glyn Valley Tramway, 724. Of course, using Template:convert, 724 mm (29 in), is not very accurate so 724 mm (28.5 in) is much better. Converting from in(ches) to mm using |0| is not very good in this case, |1| is better. The other way, 2 ft 4.5 in (724 mm) and 28.5 in (724 mm) are OK. The article itself gives 2 ft 4+1⁄2 in (724 mm).What about 28.5? Peter Horn User talk 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed to 28.5 so 29 will now give error. Keith D (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Second query Volks Electric Railway, 2 ft 8.5 in (826 mm) 32.5 in (830 mm) 2 ft 8 1⁄2 in (825 mm) appears to already be in but with different conversion factor of 825 rather than 826. Keith D (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• So we make that 32.5 which already exists. 33 or 33 in (838 mm) was a temporary or former track gauge. A correction, 32.5 in (830 mm) should be 32.5 in (826 mm), it is all in |0|. Peter Horn User talk 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have got 825 converting to 2 ft 8+1⁄2 and visa versa. Keith D (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have done Template talk:RailGauge#Please add & insert some more and Template talk:RailGauge#Minor adjustments with queries above in the sandbox. If you want to check it out in the {{RailGauge/sandbox}} version and let me know if there are any problems or if I can put it live.

I'm going to look at {{RailGauge/sandbox}}. Peter Horn User talk 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The other 2 are a little more problematic. On Template talk:RailGauge#Add   to templates is it just adding a non-breaking space on each output following the closing bracket? Cannot understand what is required from Template talk:RailGauge#Add parameters. Keith D (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding non breaking spaces WITHIN Template:RailGauge would mean that the text (template) will not break at the end of a sentence when one really does not want a break in the wrong place.

I have added {{nowrap}} into the sandbox version but I cannot get the documentation page to load now. I think that there is some limit we are hitting on the number of template calls or the size of the code produced when the template is expanded up. Keith D (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I asked for the option "disp=s" and/or "disp=/" to be added within Template:RailGauge just as it appears in Template:convert. E.g. 56.5 where the "disp=s" does not yet show up, as compared to 56.5 in (1,435 mm). Peter Horn User talk 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

E.g. {{RailGauge | gauge spec (below) [ | al=on ] [ | lk=on ] [ | disp=s ]}} Peter Horn User talk 21:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that in all cases I used either Template:convert or Template:RailGauge. Peter Horn User talk 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your changes (additional conversions) do not yet show up here. Peter Horn User talk 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes will only be shown when you use {{RailGauge/sandbox}} in place of {{RailGauge}}. Keith D (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your table on your sandbox looks A1 OK. Peter Horn User talk 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template talk:RailGauge#Add   to templates The tables in British narrow gauge railways provide perfect examples as to why   is needed in Template:RailGauge. In many cases the unit value appears on one line and the unit symbole on the next line. Peter Horn User talk 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like just on the imperial to metric conversion I cut the {{tl|nowrap}] too short. I have extended it now and the page looks OK to me. Keith D (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And indeed it does. An additional solution which could still be implemented is to arrange all images as a "gallery" at the beginnlng of each table. Show me how that is done for one table and I'll finish the rest. In addition {{tl|nowrap}] should be implemented on all conversion templates so as to prevent them from breaking up at unsuitabe points when a given template falls at the end of a line. Peter Horn User talk 16:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added to {{nowrap}} for all conversions in the {{RailGauge}} template. Keith D (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done a gallery for first table, if it does not look right them back it out. Keith D (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Someone recently raised the issue of the photos on the Philip Larkin page. I don't know if you know his poem "Here" which he wrote about Hull. Its repeated in full here. I was wondering if you know of any photos (perhaps historic?) of Hull on Commons which chime with any of the images of Hull he mentions? eg the "domes and statues" or the "barge-crowded water" or even the "cut-price crowd, urban yet simple"? almost-instinct 13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, very few historic photos available. Best I can come up with are File:32-SFEC-HULL-20081114.JPG of the city hall for domes and for barges would be File:Arrival in Hull.jpg or modern one File:Humber Dock Marina Hull.jpg Keith D (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I managed to find my way around Commons! (I'd never ventured there before!) I missed the first one, which I think is good. I'll add a couple and see what people think. Once I've worked out how to add photos :-) almost-instinct 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Butting in - try Geograph lovely mud!--Harkey (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking, cannot resist even though on holiday ;-). This one or this may go for a crowd. or possibly this for the domes of Queen Vic with City Hall in the background. Keith D (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would love the first one with the caption "In his poem "Here" Larkin venerated the people of his adoptive home Kingston-upon-Hull as "A cut-price crowd, urban yet simple, dwelling / Where only salesmen and relations come"". I'm afraid I know nothing about how to use photos in WP. Could one of you add that photo to the "Reception history" subsection of the Legacy section? I've put a hidden comment in where I think it should go - right next door to the criticisms of his poetry's "suburban mental ratio" ;-) almost-instinct 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I wonder if that will cause any discussion on the talk page ... :-) almost-instinct 15:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Got your trolley-buses in too! Shame I couldn't find a place for that lovely mud.... almost-instinct 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

May I draw you attention to this question on the talk page you might have missed: Talk:Philip Larkin#Query about reference Thank you! almost-instinct 18:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I had missed it, but it looks like it goes to the page URL now - do you think there is a problem? Keith D (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When moving the cite template from the footnote to the References section I changed the url over. It seems to me more useful to have a link to the content itself, but I'm about far from being an expert on matters relating to citations and references as is possible to be... almost-instinct 23:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have tweaked it to have both URLs in the citation so you can get to the front page or the chapter in question. Keith D (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! almost-instinct 00:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Our cut-price crowd didn't survive the cull at the Peer Review :-( But your trolley-buses look like they're staying... almost-instinct 12:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite web

Did you pick this one up? (Northumbrian rain is really good value, you get twice as wet with half the rain!!)--Harkey (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of it. I thought that there was a bot set up to apply archiving to any new references that were added to articles and I see updates from it occasionally but unsure how it gets triggered and why it does not do it for all references. I will have to investigate when I see any entry pop up by it so I know which bot it is, but have not seen one recently. Keith D (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Spotted it - it is WebCiteBOT Keith D (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! It will save a lot of work maintaining refs, afterwards, if its run after an article gets checked ready to go to GAN. --Harkey (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. It looks like it is concentrating on Encarta references as the site is to be shut down at end of the year. Keith D (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I edited a bit on my laptop via mobile phone link when I was away. Painfully slow!--Harkey (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be quicker than I have at the moment, since the upgrade in Firefox having trouble getting pages to load and pop-ups will not work until the page is fully loaded so things are not going too well! Keith D (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Railjet" page from the High-speed trains category

Hello

Why did you remove the "Railjet" page from the High-speed trains category? I undertand the difference between the Siemens Velaro and the ICE 3, i.e. just one version of the actual train, but at the present time the general concept of running a 230 kmph train comprising coventional locomotive and dedicated coaches is only done by the Railjet, and as such "Railjet" is just as entitled to that category as Shinkansen or TGV etc. Merely because there is only one example of the form in operation, and merely because it is neither an EMU nor a two-power-car format like TGV Sud Est or ICE 1, is no reason to exclude it?

I propose to add it back, and as a curtesey perhaps you could explain why you removed it as no explanation / comment was given?

Mu2 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong user for this message. I have not edited that particular article. I think that Shortfatlad is the one who removed the category. Keith D (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2009

Delivered November 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 · 01:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

East Riding alternative image texts

Do I need to think of alternative text for (map)images in infobox, please?. I'm rapidly running out of adjectives!!--Harkey (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would guess yes, have a look at some of the newly promoted FAs on locations and see what they have put in for maps. Sorry for not been much help at the moment, PC problems persist and it appears to be a general problem as there are lots of things about it on the web but no one has come up with a solution as yet. So I am working very slowly and it is very frustrating. Keith D (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with a go slow computer, it's particularly bad on a typo, takes minutes to correct one letter instead of a couple of seconds!! I did a bit more today on E Riding. Please can you give it the "once over" again and make any more comments. Thanks.--Harkey (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have covered off most of the peer review comments. I spotted a missing alt text for the fire station picture and one or two references with URLs for publisher that could be changed to the organisation it applies to. I think may be we could put the map you made of the differences between old/current area could go in the administrative history section, its in the linked article now. May be we could mention the courts at Beverley along with the police bits. Probably time for a GA submission and see what happens, though I guess it will be end of month before it gets reviewed. Keith D (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just added List of monastic houses in the East Riding of Yorkshire to the EY template may be it could go as a see also in the Religious sites section? Keith D (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. (I was reading somewhere, recently, that there is so little left of the old castles and monasteries in the East Riding, because there is no good local stone, so the sites were robbed out fast by the locals. Things don't change!!)--Harkey (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added the link. Also thought of Defence School of Transport at RAF Leconfield that could be mentioned somewhere after someone added it to another article. Keith D (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm yes, not quite sure where to put it though - transport, public services, economy?--Harkey (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess economy would be appropriate, may be there is some figures somewhere of what it adds to the economy of the area. Keith D (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK done, sir, next challenge!!?--Harkey (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How about a GA submission, probably about a month to get any final bits done before it gets reviewed. 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Did ER GAN

Just nominated East Riding at WP:GAN.--Harkey (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - will just have to wait and see now, hopefully will be around when it is reviewed as I am away week after next. Keith D (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Marton, Harrogate

If you wish to amend something that is a/ factual b/ reported in the press c/ relevant & pertinant, and posted by a witness to the event as opposed to a 3rd party operating to an arbitary set of rules

then would it not be poilite to discuss it first?

my email address is barkiehunt@aol.com: i have amended the post about MY village, where I live again: please do not amend without a good reason & without discussing it with me 1st

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.24.112 (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No it is not the policy to discuss changes first in this case as per WP:BRD, the discussion comes after the reversion. The added information was not supported by any reliable sources and was not in encyclopedic tone for example the word bust is not something that you would expect to find in articles. Similarly disgust is not in accordance with out policy of neutral point of view. Thank you. Keith D (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree 'bust' is not appropriate: amended as you can see: added source from press regarding the situation: comments attached sum up local feeling: I feel "disgust" is actually mild descriptive

Thankyou for reassuring a resident, author, history student, PhD, and businessman that it was totally the right decision not to publish my personal researcgh into local history (the subject I was awarded a 1st degree and my PhD for) on Wiki if prople who have no knowledge of the subject can chop lumps out of my work with no reference to me. I feel thats totally against the spirit of this website, so you are welcome to it. Good job mate! Amhunt84 (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of wiki is that anyone can edit it without reference to previous editors as it says when you try to edit "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." which is toned down form a previous version. Keith D (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for clearing that up: just as long as you are willing to accept that as you change it I will use the same terms of reference to change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amhunt84 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is your collaboration with Harkey Lodger a way of avoiding the 3 edit rule keith? so you 2 take it in turns to try to bully me off a page ? Pathetic mate: small minded and pathetic. Amhunt84 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not had any collaboration with Harkey on this one, please to do accuse people of things that are not true. Keith D (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Amhunt84 - WP:GRAPEVINE makes it clear that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" so your accusation is not only paranoid but pointless almost-instinct 15:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marton, Harrogate. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.Amhunt84 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

dear almost-indistinct... i actually came to you for advice regarding this situation: you ignored it.... please dont try to act all grown up now: I am neither paranoid nor pointless: clearly Keith d and harkey are taking it in turns to revert editing that I did to avoid being caught by the 3 edit rule: i was, as i said earlier, looking forward to getting involved with Wikipedia, but you seem more interested in serving your own weak egos than helping a newcomer to understand the rules and mores of editing. I hope you feel you have achieved something old chap: you have all certainly worked hard at not helping! well done! Amhunt84 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Marton, Harrogate for reply made earlier almost-instinct 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Superbike Info Boxes

Hi there, thanks for the fix on the date of birth field on the info boxes, ill paste it into all the articles i know. Do you know why the dropdown aspect of the tables doesnt work? Plus would it be possible to have a drop down results bit with BSB and BSS results as well as WSBK? Thought id ask as you seem to know more than me about these tables :) Thanks Xrateddan (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems a strange way of getting the data output in the infobox, I had to look at the template code to work out why the information was not been displayed. The death information is done in a similar way and neither is documented on the documentation page. I will have a look at the table but have no experience of dropdowns though may be useful learning about them. Keith D (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

i worked out that to use the drop downs you have to put information into the first line. Ie the dates of which they were in the world superbike championship then the infoboxes open up. There is also a template for BSB and BSS but they dont work which would be nice if they did... Thanks Xrateddan (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the sections are triggered by the XXX Active years being present in the template. Though looking at the template code it does not have the sections indicated for BSB & BSS as per the documentation, which is totally out of step with that is coded. The sections could easily be added as per the other sections though unsure where the links would go to. Keith D (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added the BSB & BSS sections to a version of the template in my sandbox with what links I think there should be for the headings. If you can try it out and let me know if there are any changes needed. I can put it live in place of the existing template if you are happy with the changes. Keith D (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Keith i tried your template and when you use the standard table layout style it simpaly just does what it was doing before (Not showing BSB and BSS). Maybe its because it doesnt reconise the terms BSB and BSS thats the only thing that i can thing of going wrong Xrateddan (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just put a copy of Leon Camier into my sandbox and changed the existing entries to BSB calls and that appears to output what is required. Can you have a look and see if that is OK. You can change it if you want as it is just a test. Keith D (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to totally work now which is a good thing, ive added BSS and SBK stats to the table and it all seems to work together ill try it in an article then start the process of copying the tables across to the articles. Thanks for all your work :) Xrateddan (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again i posted the Camier table into his article and the BSB and BSS aspects still dont work, which means its the template thats at fault as it works in your sandbox. Thanks again anyway Xrateddan (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You were too quick, I have just updated the live template with the changes from my sandbox after the first message. Edit article again and it should pick up the changed template. Keith D (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yer its working now thanks :) Xrateddan (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

High Mowthorpe

A quick search revealed only these snippets. It was privatised then appears to be being sold off piecemeal. The weather station there does not get a mention. I have a feeling that I saw a map recently that pointed to Sledmere Estate for weather info. Will carry on looking.--Harkey (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just remembered where I saw it here.--Harkey (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Pat Keysell

You have deleted an editing which shows that this lady has died just recently - which she has! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.158.153 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable reference for this, if so I can reinstate it, but we get lots of indications that people have died which are false. I did a quick google but did not turn up any thing about a death. Keith D (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC

My quick google found a source - have updated article. PamD (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But she certainly didn't die on 7 Nov 2009 as previously asserted - the news item is dated 4th Nov (dated on the site's News Index page, though not on the page itself - silly people!). I think it's valid to assume that she died in 2009, but wouldn't be more precise unless there's a definite source to say so. PamD (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a couple of days ago that I did the google so probably will be more available now. Keith D (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

More oddball rail gauges

Keith, Please see Template talk:RailGauge#More oddball rail gauges. I just keep on finding more. Peter Horn User talk 23:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet more until the 15th inclusive. Peter Horn User talk 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Keith, 450 mm (17.72 in) vs 450 mm (17+23⁄32 in), that is NOT 457mm! The difference is 7 mm (0.28 in) Peter Horn User talk 21:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Try 17.72 in (450 mm) vs 17.72. Pardon my nitpicking. Nick name me the "Mad RailGauger". Peter Horn User talk 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

27.5 make that 699 mm, compare 27.5 in (698 mm)

Keith, Please see Template talk:RailGauge#And yet more oddball rail gauges. User:Slambo, see his talk page, had not yet gotten around to them for the past 11 months or so. Peter Horn User talk 03:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

558mm or 558 mm (1 ft 9.9685 in) is almost like 22!! The difference is 1 millimetre (0.0394 in). This is somewhat absurd. Peter Horn User talk 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I just added that from the talk page - are you requesting removal? Keith D (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rugby Town F.C.

You seem to be having as much fun with Sarumio as I am. I have a special membership badge if you'd like one. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be on a crusade for some reason, he has done this several times before. Keith D (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Must be about, oh, five years now, poor chap. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kirklees College

Hi Keith, Both you and I have reverted similar vandalism on the Kirklees College article. Looking at the edits we seem to have the same editor using multiple Tiscali Dynamic IP Addresses to target the article. IE:- 88.110.46.53; 85.210.12.189; 85.210.13.13; 79.71.185.19 and 81.170.8.24. Is it possible to do a range block on the account, or protect it from IP address editing? Richard Harvey (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back. I hope you had a well deserved rest. Just letting you know that I shall be away 24th & 25th then for a week from next Sunday, if you need anything for the newsletter.--Harkey (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a good break and the best of the weather by the look of things! It will take some time to get back up to date on the watchlist which is always a bad thing about being away. Could do with a feature for the newsletter, probably a seasonal related one as it will be the Christmas edition. Keith D (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If anyone says "Christmas" my mind goes blank (more than usual, I mean !!!) I'll sleep on it.--Harkey (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not bedtime yet - or may be my clock is wrong. Keith D (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

--Harkey (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite copious amounts of sleep, I'm still drawing a blank on this one. --Harkey (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I did something on gifts last year, may be that issue may inspire you. Keith D (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, brain cells are starting to twitch. As it goes out at the beginning of the month, (Paper lad willing!!!!) how about 'gift suggestions for Wikipedians'? People are always asking me for hints and I never know what to suggest. --Harkey (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it may go. I can think of camera and reference books. Though a gun may be useful for use against the vandals. Keith D (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Punch bag and swear box, too.--Harkey (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably need extra large for the box. Keith D (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Have not forgotten. Still have to clean the straw out of the Landrover and put fresh bait in the rodent boxes before trip to Kent tomorrow!!--Harkey (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering, I have just gone through tagging all the new articles that have appeared so will update watchlists tonight hopefully. Keith D (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

First draft is on the newletter page. Please edit, add etc. as usual. I tried to make it gender neutral.--Harkey (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

West Midlands categories

Hi, A user with IP address 86.29.132.148 (and others beginning with 86.29) has been adding too many categories to the West Midlands pages. I advised him or her while editing yesterday and the editing stopped, but there were more edits later all without edit summaries. I have reverted about 15 to 20 edits removing categories - twice on a few pages. This is just to let you know in case the editor continues adding too many categories. Snowman (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I am not currently up to date and so am not watching current activity. Keith D (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Boston Grammar School

Hi keith

Thank you for your comments. It is a shame that much of what has been written is so outdated and of a personal opinion. I do not understand your reasons for reverting ALL the edit. Much of what has been written already is unreferenced and is VERY out of date. As Bostonians and many will be Boston Parents, we know - clearly -the facts about what has happened and is still happening at the school. We have documents that back up all the facts have placed on the website. The Governments own facts back up many of the other comments. The Boston Standard and Boston Target local newspapers have all the copy and stories that I quoted, about birth rates and languages etc. The Government's own GovernorLine agency have it on record and many of us have the documents obtained under FOI that are referred to and quoted.

What is the source for all the 'old' and outdated information that really ought to be removed? Viz John Neal was made redundant (retirement was a secondary effect) The School information is incorrect about moving to the one site. Governor minutes prove different. There is NO BSF money - LA meeting with Governors.

We could go on and the list is very long. Above all Wikipaedia should reflect accuracy. If you do not wish for certain parts to be added / edited , then you should also take off much of the existing information which is also opinion and NOT fact and not able to referenced or attributed to factual documents or website information.

There is no bias or conflict of interest from myself (and other Boston residents). We have a real concern that our historic school is represented correctly. There is more of an interest in getting the site FACTUALLY correct where at present - it is not.

What I read in the original text is full of errros, bias and personal comment. Why is that allowed when my factual update is not? Please let me know so I can then direct my edit to conform. What you should understand is that, although you think that we have a conflict- we do not; and because you are reading the edit in the context of what is already written , you believe the edit to be not factual. We feel you are taking a subjective view based on the original not an objective view, and that is only because you are not in possession of ALL the facts of what has happened during the last 3 to 5 years. We can edit out and change or remove any comments that are not 100% provable and can take away any political aspects if you wish. That is not a problem. Mostly I am concerned that the site reflects the true facts about the school, it's position at present so anyone reading it sees that the school may not survive if current (machiavellian) plans succeed. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonParent (talk • contribs) 10:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are errors in the existing material then point them out and give me a reliable source for the correction (obviously that will have to be online for me to check it out). As you may be aware most of the material on Wikipedia is unreferenced and added in the early days of the site we are tightening up on new / changes to existing material by requiring sources to be cited in the article and preferably in-line. We are slowly tagging existing material that requires sources and are removing it after a period of tagging as unreferenced. The material you added to me appeared to be biased and was far too long, a couple of sentences would be more appropriate to give details. Keith D (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Masters Apprentices page history

Thanks. I'll try to remember to use move page process instead of cut n paste next time. I'm sorry.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Date in URL

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 23:35 30 November 2009 (UTC).

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2009

Delivered December 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 · 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ER thanks

Thanks for the message re: East Riding. It's raining hard in Kent today! And, I can't get used to calling a heap of pebbles a beach! Nothing like Brid. (but that's my problem, not theirs, I suppose)--Harkey (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am watching the review. I will have to re-borrow a couple of the books for refs 4-7 and, as they are used several times, then we will either have to go to Harvard referencing to cite page numbers or repeat the titles etc. with page numbers. Is there a better way? The mixture of referencing styles is a problem in the Leeds and Anne Bronte articles too. I tried to get round it using 'Notes' on Leeds, but that seems to be frowned upon.--Harkey (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not think there is any other way, though I rather liked the linked Havard referencing scheme but not attempted it as yet. I was hoping that you would have the books available for the history section of the review, I did the easy geography comments. Will see what else comes up later. Hopefully we can get this cracked quickly or else I will be away again. I am away from next Friday until the New Year at least, may have to go earlier depends on when a funeral is arranged. Keith D (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Will try to keep abreast of this one then I'm going to take a bit of a Wikibreak. (Promises, promises!!) I'll get the books on Friday if they're in the library. I'm at the crucial stage of trying to sell parents house which has taken nearly a year to empty and flog!--Harkey (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that you could do the January newsletter, I hope to get basic framework there next week if I get the time. Though there has not been that much activity on the article front this month. Keith D (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The newsletter is no problem. I can do it in the gap between Christmas and New Year. Have you a topic in mind?--Harkey (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could do something like a review of the year to see how far we have come in the last year. I did some thing like this last year. Or may be some looking forward with goals for the coming year but that would probably more difficult as we seem to have few active members like some of the other projects. For example Cheshire seem to have got a prolific producer of new articles they always seem to have new articles added. Keith D (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll think in that direction for the newsletter. I've also been thinking about altering the format/layout a bit? --Harkey (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(reset)I now have the books that I cited in the East Riding article. I have to go through using Harvard referencing which may be rather slow as I'm not familiar with it. Has the reviewer stopped reviewing completely as the edit summary said "stopped at this point"? I don't want to get into edit conflicts with the reviewer if they are still working with it. All the problems mentioned so far are fairly easily resolved. It was just a case of getting hold of the source material again.--Harkey (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsure of what the reviewer meant but I think they are doing a section at a time and that they had finished that section so I would make the changes where you can. Keith D (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got up to date with the comments/corrections. I found and substituted a Facts and Figures pdf link but not sure its exactly the same as the old one. Can you glance at it, if you have time? Going out for a while now.--Harkey (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the figures as they are 2008 rather than 2007 figures in the reference. Though "Less than 5% of the population travel to work by public transport compared with 15% nationally." is not in the new document so is left unreferenced now. Never the less it passed - cheers all round. I think we need to regroup a bit before taking up the FAC suggestion may be when we are both back in the new year. Keith D (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!!--Harkey (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

Since you have contributed to List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, this is to inform you of a discussion which I have started at Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom#Criteria for inclusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UK University American Football teams

Deproding all articles which i've individually prodded on the grounds that they were kept in a procedural close as each of them would have to be assessed on a case for case basis really isn't helpful, since I was putting them up on a case for case basis. I will reprod them later on tonight and, since this is the chance for each to assert its notability, as Durham Sharks could not, please do not deprod. Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Should really take them to AFD once they have been though a previous ADF rather than prod them. Keith D (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Woodleigh School

Not looking to tread on toes here, but don't understand your logic.

A preparatory school is by definition a indepedent school, and therefore has to be included in both categories. Also, a blanket undo without a reason is surely not the WP way - discussion is the way forward on this. Other similar schools are included in more than one category - why not this one? Is there something special about this particular school?! 88.110.208.83 (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As indicated I was removing the school for categories above ones that it is in. Thus Category:Preparatory schools in England is not required as it is in Category:Preparatory schools in North Yorkshire which is a sub-category of this. It is a category tree and you put it in the lowest category possible removing it from categories higher in the tree. I left in in both independent and preparatory categories but at the lowest level i.e. North Yorkshire Keith D (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what about all the other schools which are in the higher and lower tree categories? There needs to be some consistency. To that end the original question has not been answered - as originally put, is this school a special case?88.110.208.83 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC) No reply I see - yet another little god complex run and go mod on Wiki - it's really going downhill - such a shame. 88.110.208.83 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No this is not a special case, I have not noted other schools that are in categories as you indicate can you give an example so I can look at and see if it needs to be trimmed from some categories? Keith D (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes - by your logic above, all the schools still listed in the higher categories of Category:Preparatory schools in England and Category:Independent schools in England which have not been relocated to the lower tree county categories. This amounts to around 50 schools. Consistency would require all such schools to be relocated into lower tree categories, rather than just one. I think a broad consensus on this is required before taking unilateral action on one listing. 88.110.208.83 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If the appropriate category exists then yes they should be relocated, but I think that you will find that the articles there have not got an appropriate county category to go into as it is not worth creating a category for a single entry. Keith D (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact if you look in Category:Independent schools in England there is a banner at the top which indicates that articles in that category should be moved to the appropriate sub-category. Keith D (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please ensure this is done before making unilateral decision based on one listing. This is not WP and should be done with consensus. I trust you will cease hit and run undos until either consensus has been reached or all the schools have been moved. Otherwise it would appear you have a vendetta against this one artcle page - something which I note the article page's history would in fact bear out. 88.110.219.38 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is already done, there is no vendetta against one particular school. The top level category, as far as I can see, only contains school articles that have no county sub-category for them to go into. As stated above it is pointless to create a sub-category for a single article. When more articles are created for a particular county then the county sub-directory should be created and the articles relocated into it. Keith D (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox heritage railway

Hello Keith, Thanks for fixing the template. See Template talk:Infobox heritage railway#Helston Railway Preservation Company where I posted a request for "logo_caption" and the reason why. Peter Horn User talk 21:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added map_caption to the template for the caption below map that you say was not showing. Keith D (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Doncaster Rovers F.C

Dear Keith, i would like to know how and why you think that there is "a strong rivalry" between Doncaster and Leeds. There is no rivalry at all. There is as much rivalry between Doncaster and Leeds as there is Between Doncaster and Hull. Doncasters biggest rivals are Rotherham[1] , all the others mentioned bar Nottingham are all just Yorkshire Derbys. The rivalry between Doncaster and Mansfield is not mentioned neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelderd92 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted out your edit as it contained the phrase "one sided hatred" which is rather emotive and non-neutral phrase to use. The change was also not accompanied by an edit summary to explain the reason for the change nor was it backed up by a reference. The subsequent change by an IP I considered vandalism as I had just reverted out your change and it appeared to be a follow on from your edit. Keith D (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oooh okiedoke, well i would like it if somebody with your Wikipedia expertise could sort it out for me. As it is clearly wrong, all the evidence is in the link provided earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelderd92 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked it to show Rotherham as the main rival adding your link as a reference. Keith D (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Carwyn Jones

Hiya Keith D. Saw your edit to the new 1st Minister's article here. I completely agree that it is unnecessary to Wikilink common words (like Wales) and that it is unnecessary to add 'UK' after England, Wales etc. Just wondered if you knew which part of WP:MOS it is on, as I've seen a whole load of biogs with '... Scotland, UK' etc. in the infobox that I would like to amend. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For the linking it is WP:Overlink specifically the section "What generally should not be linked". The non use of UK I could not my finger on, I ask the question of where it was discussed a while back but opened up a can of worms so left it. The general agreement as far as I remember is to just use the country and not follow it by the state. Keith D (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll keep my eye out (and wait to see if your Carwyn Jones edit is reverted :) ) Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably by IP 81.23.57.177. Keith D (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. You've got his number, alright. Daicaregos (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes

I'm certain it was not intentional, but in this edit you introduced false information into the article. The birth-date and death-date templates emit microformats which are specified to give dates in the ISO 8601 format, and that standard requires that dates always be in the Gregorian calendar. The "extra" dates were Gregorian dates to be emitted as microformats, while the dates you left were Julian dates for display.

I request that you repair the article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It was me not understanding the complication of these templates. I was only expecting to find a single date in the templates not two so removed the extra date. It is unnecessary complications like this that add to the complexity of the code in wiki articles. Keith D (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Philip Davies

Your recent reverts to this page restored negative controversial information that was sourced only to a forum. Please be very careful when editing BLPs that you don't restore information like this. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To me it just looked like vandalism as it removed referenced material and there was no suitable edit summary for the reason for removal. Keith D (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavian York

Hi. Just wondering why you reverted (without edit summary) what looked like a perfectly reasonable non-vandalistic edit by an anon IP (86.171.100.2 - BT shared address) to the above. It seems to me (and I know very little about this neck of the woods, nor do I know who the anon editor was) that Halfdan Ragnarsson gives a rather better idea of who he was than the unlinked "Prince Halfdan of the not very usefully linked "Sjælland", especially as the former link - albeit unreferenced - gives the date of 875 rather than 876. Best. --GuillaumeTell 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it it looked wrong to me at the time because of the date change. I would have expected the date to be correct as it claims had come from a referenced source. If you think that the change by the IP was correct then by all means revert me out. Though either way I think that the reference book needs checking to see what information it gives. Keith D (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20