User talk:Keith D/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Hull article

Hi there,

I've gone through the recent edits and left this welcome on WilberforceHope's talk page. Northumbrian (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just did a minor tweak. Keith D (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the Economy section of the Hull article and finished dabbing and de-linking where appropriate; I've also left this message at his talk page. Have a good weekend. Northumbrian (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I will have a look when I get to it. Keith D (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So in the article, are we using the DD-Month-YYYY format for the date attribute in citation templates and the ISO YYYY-MM-DD for the accessdate attribute? Northumbrian (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears so, probably a hang over from when we had date linking, I think that we should have both in the same format at some point if we want to go for FA. Keith D (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the IP address(es) adding the recent material is Wilberforcehope? The pattern seems the same. Is there an admin way to check? If so, perhaps we could start asking him/her on the IP address talk pages to log in to edit, and follow the tips left on his talk page regarding citation templates, etc.? I know it's whack-a-mole with dynamic IP addresses, but it might be worth trying. Northumbrian (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is the same person doing the edits, especially as they are editing the material on Larkin25. I have already dropped a note on 86.163.84.39 which could have been better worded but I was getting fed up of reformatting the references. The only way to check if they are the same is a checkuser process which is restricted to a few people with the checkuser privilege and only done in cases of sockpuppetry investigations. Keith D (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC

That's what I thought; oh well. I can start trying to look after citation templates too if you're not in too much of a hurry to get them fixed. I often have to wait until after my work day ends, about 11pm in Britain, for more detailed editing.

Perhaps if it continues, start reverting edits from that range of IP addresses that add unformatted references, with edit summaries explaning why? I know it skirts ownership and good faith assumption issues, but at the same time, the dirty job of maintaining formatting shouldn't fall to just one or two editors.

Finally, so much for letting the crap town issue die; I see Radiator's chimed in on the talk page, which might bring Andrew back for more back and forth. Sigh... Northumbrian (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just spotted new user LarkinToad2010 editing the Philip Larkin page on the Larkin 25 festival. Keith D (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

S/he created a new article on the festival and wikiinked to it from the Hull article a bit earlier today. Conflict of interest? Northumbrian (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a copy of the text from the Hull article before I put the space in for consistency. Keith D (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it wrong to wish that all the recent IP address and new-user edits were more blatantly vandalistic? Because semi-protection would make our jobs quite a bit easier at the moment... Northumbrian (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It would make it easier but do not think that is a good enough case for semi protection. Would not help with the non-IP users as they can edit semi-protected after a couple of days, though easier to block them. Keith D (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, after the most recent destruction of citation template formatting by Larkintoad2010, I reverted to your last edit and left a welcome/suggestions message regarding the edit summary, citation templates, and the policies/guidelines on recentism, peacock terms, and conflict of interest, similar to what we did for WilberforceHope, on his or her talk page and on the talk page of the IP address who immediately started editing after the reversion. Latest edits to the article seem to indicate that the suggestions are being taken seriously for the moment. Northumbrian (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Crap Town" again

Now someone wants to re-add the Crap Town trivia that was removed during the GA push a few years ago. I've tried to summarise the reasons it and similar material were removed at that time per consensus, and gone through the archives and tried to link to the relevant reasoning on the talk page, but not quite sure I'm remembering it correctly. Your thoughts? Northumbrian (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the recent exchange on the Hull article talk page regarding this issue? To be fair, I think he makes a valid case, up to a point, but I did have to chuckle a bit at the irony of his labeling us "POV-pushers" when he's throwing out words like "dump", and "edit warriors", as it seems to me rather hard to have an edit war when you're specifically invited to edit the article. At any rate, the issue seems to be played out, and as tempting as it is to respond with those points, I'll be happy to let him have the last word and just drop the matter. However, perhaps a thorough review of the article soon, along the lines of what I recommended on the talk page, is in order. Northumbrian (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I did make a quick comment, the material is rather dated now at 6 years out of date, may be best to leave it and let it die. I will have another read when I get to it. I am tying to get things tied up before I go away next week.

The article needs to be looked at again after the recent changes as it needs tightening up after all the additions. There is some duplication and some sections that need merging after one section was split-up with headings for each sentence almost. May be have a tidy-up and then have a peer review to get a fresh perspective on the article. I have suggested a few times to people that they could create some sub-articles to put in detail rather than adding to the main article but no one seems to have taken that suggestion up. Keith D (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Larkin 25 festival effects

Hi Keith, I've added this section to the Hull talk page. Please feel free to add your two cents. I'll also notify Wilberforcehope, Larkintoad2010, and the IP addresses we've already notified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northumbrian (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just archived some of the page as it was getting a bit long. Time for bed. Keith D (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Keith, I've just spotted the above notes regarding WilberforceHope. Which is timely, having my instincts jingled on Thursday. I have been doing a bit of digging around in article editing histories and suspected there may be a bit of Sockpuppetry going on, so I have acted on my instincts and produced this:- Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WilberforceHope. If my suspicions are correct then note in particular 86.161.54.220, which has a block log. I will leave it to yourself to do the 'necessary'. Richard Harvey (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As you have delved around in the editing pattern of these users and tagged them, may be best if you create the case and someone with the appropriate tools will pick it up. Though it may be just a case of co-workers not declaring themselves. Keith D (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be using IP 86.161.157.53 today. Keith D (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe Richard's tagged that user page already.

The editors involved don't seem aware of much policy and simply might not know that he or she should be using one account and be logged into it when editing. Perhaps a warning to the editor before initiating any proceedings, on the article talk page and the talk pages of the accounts/IP addresses in question? I'll admit though, success with communication through talk pages so far has been spotty. Northumbrian (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably worth a try, there is no templated talk page note only for when the sockpuppet investigation has started. The additions are generally useful but need work to fit them into the article, do not really need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Keith D (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Done on the article talk page, after a few more recent edits from yet another IP address in the range in question. Northumbrian (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's progress on the talk page in the sockpuppet section. I know you're busy with a lot of other stuff on the wiki and the Yorks. project, but if you get a moment, please feel free to chime in there; I don't want it to seem to the editor in question that it's just me against him/her on the Hull article. Northumbrian (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Have not got back there yet. Just reverted out changes by 86.163.230.9 to Anlaby Road, Hull and removed loads of categories they added to Larkin 25, someone else has also reverted their revet of me on Theresa May. Keith D (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood; I'm surprised the Larkin 25 article hasn't been CSD'd or PROD'd yet. Probably because it's well-referenced, though still a bit promotional. Northumbrian (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just added a comment to the Hull article, it happened to be the next one on the watchlist after Coventry railway station. I tagged the articles for the Yorkshire project but the Anlaby Road one is not really much but will see what happens. Keith D (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

After the last couple of edits to the article and its talk page, I've had it. There's a clear conflict of interest that I was happy to report. Northumbrian (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No TOC for Hull talk page?

Hi Keith, any idea why there's no table of contents appearing on the Hull talk page? I've looked for __NOTOC__ but not found it on the page; I've also added __FORCETOC__ to the page, but no luck. My prefs are set to see TOCs in general, and I see them on other pages. Any ideas? Northumbrian (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just had a play and it appears to be something to do with the banner shell that wraps up the project templates. Take it out and the TOC appears, but cannot see why as it appears OK on Talk:Philip Larkin page which has the same shell, may be it is one of the project templates that is the problem. Keith D (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Even stranger - remove all the header templates and place a single project banner there and the TOC disappears. Keith D (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd say something with the banner then, but if other pages are unaffected...? Maybe remove the project templates one by one from the Hull talk page and see if one of them is the culprit, perhaps only those that aren't also on the Larkin page? Northumbrian (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I took the lot off and put on just the Yorkshire one and the TOC did not appear, same with any of the templates. Cannot see what the problem is as it works perfectly well on other pages. Keith D (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You can put __TOC__ in as a work round and it should appear. Keith D (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Isaac Newton mods

Hi Keith,

message at User_talk:Trev_M#Isaac_Newton_mods for you and others,

All the best, Trev M ~  21:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent assessment of River Idle and River Ryton

Hi Keith, thanks for your recent assessment of these two articles. I noticed that you commented that one was nearly a B and one was nearly a C. I have since expanded both of them with extra sections, and wondered if you would mind having a quick look at them again to see if they have made B and C yet. If not, any comments on what is needed would be gratefully received. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look later - just about to go out. Keith D (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

River Idle Comments -

• I would change Yorkshire for South Yorkshire in the lead as we use current counties.
• The last paragraph of the lead appears to be out of place. There is no mention of these details in the rest of the article and so no context for them.
• Some additional wikilinks would help with understanding of it, such as Triassic Sherwood Sandstone, Mercia mudstones, Magnesian Limestone.
• Needs some bits referencing, though it may be that the reference given covers the whole paragraph. For example "The catchment for the River Idle covers some 280 square miles (730 km2), which has an average annual rainfall of 24 inches (610 mm) (based on figures from 1961 to 1990). About a third of this finds its way into the rivers." appears unreferenced.
• The co-ordinate data appears to need a tweak as there is a #14, probably from the title co-ordinates.
• Add {{Commons category}} for images of river on Commons though will need setting up on Commons first.

Keith D (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

River Ryton has similar comments -

• Some additional wikilinks would help with understanding of it, such as Triassic Sherwood Sandstone, Mercia mudstones, Magnesian Limestone.
• Needs some bits referencing, though it may be that the reference given covers the whole paragraph. For example the first paragraph of Hydrology section.
• The co-ordinate data appears to need a tweak as there is a #1, probably from the title co-ordinates.
• The lead could do with some addition detail as a bit thin.
• Needs some converts such as "60m contour"
• Obvious missing information is the length of the river.
• Add {{Commons category}} for images of river on Commons though will need setting up on Commons first.

Keith D (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have addressed most of these, I think. Refs are a bit tricky. For the river Idle, the ref came 4 words later, but there is no way to show how much the ref covers. I have moved the ref, as it looks better, even though it is technically in the wrong place now. For the Ryton, the refs do cover the whole paragraph, unless there are multiple refs in a para. I have moved the last para of the Idle lead to the course section. The article only had the lead when I found it, and I wanted to delete that para completely, as I was unsure of its relevance, but do not like to delete other people's work without good reason. I have yet to investigate commons cats. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I have uprated River Ryton to C-class. I spotted a small inconsistency in the route box "Sheffield to Lincoln line" & "Sheffield to Lincoln railway" are both used I assume that they both refer to the same thing. I have changed the River Idle one to B-class. Keith D (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have fixed the map. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

St Peter's Church, Barnburgh

Hi Keith,

I started off an article on the 'Cat and Man' church, entitled St peter's church, barnburgh. Whilst I was writing, another user changed the article, correctly, to St. Peter's Church, Barnburgh (making the corrections which I had intended to do before saving). I then inadvertantly saved the original article, not knowing that this other amendment had been made. Consequently, there are now two near-identical articles - one which has incorrect capitalisation.

Could you arrange for the deletion of St peters church barnburgh in preference for the correct article St. Peter's Church, Barnburgh? Not sure how to correct this mistake - but I'm sure you are!

Many thanks,

Dearnesman (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just deleted your version from the wrong title, leaving behind the redirect from the move. The versions were identical apart from the co-ordinate addition that had taken place at the correct title. Keith D (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}}

Mortons of Horncastle

Hi Keith

First I must apologise. I work at Mortons, as was trying to add info about Mortons Print. I have not used Wikipedia to add anything before. I have now created an account. I should have at least added a comment or explanation for my edit. I would like to add some more info for Mortons Print, and to make a change for Media. Media isn't a division, it is a company, and Print is another. MOH Ltd is the parent of both. I work for MOH, and like to keep a balance. Media isn't the hub, MOH itself is. So again... my apologies for being naive about the edit, but I had good intentions. I tried to apply for an unblock request, but couldn't work it out, so will be happy, if you can't unblock me, to wait for the allotted time.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinderbox15 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the Mortons of Horncastle information is that the material added, as far as could be determined, was copyright material from the company website. We cannot accept any material which is under copyright, see WP:Copyright. The material added should also be verifiable and needs references to third party sources which are independent of the subject. You should also take a look at conflict of interests.

The article is locked for IP users, you should be able to edit the article when you are logged in once you are autoconfirmed, which will be a few days. Keith D (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinderbox15 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one

Keith, Please see Template talk:RailGauge#Just when I thought I had found everything Peter Horn User talk 20:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, though do not understand the previous entry where 84" & 84.25" convert to the same thing. Keith D (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wellingborough

The Wellingborough article that you have contributed to is now very near closure of its GA review. If there are any last minute improvements you can make to address the reviewer's comments at Talk:Wellingborough/GA1, please feel free to be bold and make your contribs. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sorry not able to help but I was away when things were reaching the climax of the GA process. Keith D (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Good Article

Hi Keith. You'll be pleased to know that the Wellingborough article you peer reviewed for us in March , is now a Good Article. Thanks for all your input.--Kudpung (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done, good work. I see there was a few people helping out with this, sorry I was away when the review was taking place so could not help out. Keith D (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Badger

Hi Heith. I happened on this Badger article by coincidence. I notice you have made a lot of edits to it recently. I have now also given this article a severe clean up but there is still a lot to do but the Wikipedia server gave up on me today.--Kudpung (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure, I thought that I had only done some reverting on that article. Keith D (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are one of the major contributors. But it does get a lot of vandalism.--Kudpung (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2010

Delivered July 2010 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 regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 11:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheffield/archive2

Sheffield has been nominated to become a featured article again. It would be nice to see you there helping me out. I notice you've made alot of edits to Sheffield in the past, so it would be nice to see you there. -- Jack?! 04:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I was thinking that a GA submission would be a first step but did not get round to anything. I will help out where I can but with being away recently I am still catching up and I am away again in a couple of weeks! User:JeremyA was very active trying to save it when it was demoted so may be worth a prod. Keith D (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

New article for Education in Hull

I am thinking of starting an article, well doing a pretty thorough job, entitled Education in Kingston upon Hull. There is already an Education in Lincolnshire one, and that is a useful article because education in Lincolnshire, although mostly selective, does vary from place to place with idiosyncrasies. There are facts that many people commonly overlook - such as the fact that in many areas the secondary modern schools outclass the comprehensives.

As you may know, education in Hull is a sore point because the schools are some of the worst in England. Well it's more that there are so few good schools. It has the worst behaving schoolchildren out of all other LEAs.

I want to give a warts and all article about what Hull schools were and how they are where they are.

Now your bit - do you think it is worth doing and are you of an approving opinion. I will try to get to the reasons why Hull has achieved little in its state schools, and I will not pull any punches.

The only problem is from 1974-96, Hull was part of Humberside so was ruled from Beverley with a different LEA.

Am I treading on your toes?

DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I would go ahead and create it as there is very few articles supporting the Hull page and we had thought of an FA submission at some point. There are a few notes about badly performing in the Kingston upon Hull article which are probably a year out of date now. I would think it better to cover the Humberside period in the article rather than split it out into Education in Humberside unless there is a lot of information from that period. There is also Education in the East Riding of Yorkshire that is missing to form the set.

I created List of schools in Hull some time ago but that will change with the reorganisations that are under way and the building schools for the future program which is proceeding in Hull. Not got back to that one as was considering what to do with the location column - use the area (which is a bit fuzzy) or the ward. Keith D (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I am almost there, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how Hull has navigated (pun intended) its education structure through the 20th century. It was doing OK until the comprehensive education reforms of the lated 1960s, when it struck an iceberg and took on water. It's been limping along ever since, sending out mayday calls every so often, not all of them answered. Those 1960s education reforms were so half-baked it is unbelievable. I'm afraid it is all Hull City Council's fault - they shot themselves in the foot, no-one else did. And now they are reaping the rewards. Hull City Council did to its schools what the Germans did in 1941. The only difference is that the Germans achieved their intended result.

The one beacon of sanity and solid achievement in Hull is the University of Hull. And do you know what - Hull City Council never had anything to do with it. OK, Humberside were responsible for the schools from 1974-96, and luckily they did do one ultimately useful thing - create two sixth form colleges in 1988. At least they could recognise everything in the garden was not rosy. Someone has been washing their hands of Hull's schools - it is a basket case. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article, but it does need referencing - could you take the time to add references as you have the information to hand. Keith D (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunderland New Wear Bridge

Keith,

I have noticed that you continue to change the designer of the Infinity bridge From (Spence Associates / Expedition Engineering) to only Expedition.... why? Information concerning the legal designer has been made public. The bridge design was a collaboration between BOTH Spence Associates and Expedition Engineering. Please refrain from making any further changes to this article, as it would be false information.

Regards,

MA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.189.59 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The references supplied do not show Spence Associates as being part of the design team, they were part of the initial competition. You need to supply a clear reference for the change. Also see discussion of this on the articles talk page. Keith D (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Kudpung/Brontë translation

I nearly requested CSD under U1 today, but then I thought perhaps you might want us to keep it for a while. If not, you can go ahead and delete it for me.--Kudpung (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC

I have deleted it as can always look at the deleted versions if required. Keith D (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2010

Delivered August 2010 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 regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Enemy

OK; I concede that they 'formed' in Coventry and are currently based there, but the various members are not all from that city. Can we agree to leave that they were formed in Cov, but add that their actual individual origins are the subject of dispute? Please see http://www.last.fm/music/The+Enemy which dispels the popular belief that they are from Cov and are in fact from Cov, Kenilworth and Leamington Spa ? The lead singer is, in fact, from Kenilworth - the wiki article says he is from Birmingham and while he may have been born there, he is considered to be 'from' Kenilworth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.177.168 (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Cannot say that is a reliable source as it can be user edited. Keith D (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think it could even be suggested that their individual origins are open to dispute? In which case, the source does not necessarily need to be reliable as it is what is states: open to dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.177.168 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All sources used should be reliable, their origins, like any other facts, needs to be backed up by a reference. We are concerned with verifiability which is sometimes different to the truth. Keith D (talk)

Who is to say what is reliable and what is not? Not you, and not me, and not the next person who reads this article. It's all subjective and as far as I am concerned, so long as we say that there is dispute about their origins and give a source for saying that, it does not matter. In any event, the following also say the same thing: http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/the-enemy and http://www.o2shepherdsbushempire.co.uk/event/11669/the-enemy-carl-barat-and-reverend-and-the-makers-i-tickets/ArtistsDetails and http://www.showbiz.ie/news/april08/11-the-enemy-get-support-from-mark-greaney.shtml . I think this is sufficient for us to at the very least say that there is some question over their origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.177.168 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that we need to add a footnote following Coventry, something like -

The common belief is that they are from Coventry, but other sources indicate Kenilworth or Kenilworth, Leamington and Coventry.

With the references specified at the appropriate point. How does that sound? Keith D (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Keith

Hello, Keith, I would like to point out that Redcar And Cleveland have gone to alot of trouble over the last few years to get North Yorkshire fully as there County again, And in the last 5 weeks have made it official, I find it offensive that you Keep changing the details on some of the local towns within the borough, I work closely with the council and the Mayor, And wish you would leave it once changed, I do not like wrong information being said about our area.

Thank You

Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.64.186 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The published information gives Redcar and Cleveland as part of the Ceremonial County of North Yorkshire and not governed by it as it is a unitary authority. Where is a reliable source for any such change. Keith D (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous squad vandalism at Hull City

Hi Keith,

As you see from the Hull City article's history, the current squad list has been a target of vandalism from anonymous IPs for a few months now. I made one RfPP and one AIV in the past month or so (both resulting in semi-protection for one and two weeks, respectively). The second protection period ended on the 18th, and it's started right back up again, the latest occurrence from just a few minutes ago.

It's frustrating as the vandalism isn't blatant; they could be good faith efforts and true changes that simply weren't referenced properly. If I'm the one catching it, I have to go check all the news sites to verify no change has occurred, then revert back.

Not sure what the answer is. There are a few good anon IPs that do contribute usefully, so I hate the idea of indefinite semi-protection. Perhaps pending changes protection? Can new articles be added now that the trial is over?

Thanks for listening to me whinge. Have a good weekend, let's hope the Tigers have a bit better luck tomorrow at home than last week. Northumbrian (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure on the pending changes as I was away when the trial stage concluded and missed any announcements on it. Though I thought that it was a hassle as it seems to have been poorly implemented. But will see if I can find out if it can be used generally. Keith D (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that this might be exactly the sort of vandalism for which pending changes is ill-suited anyway, as the guidelines for accepting a change were so strict. Since the vandalism isn't blatant or obvious to reviewers not familiar with the topic, they could well be accepted, leaving it for the regular editors to clean up anyway. Northumbrian (talk)

I have been dipping around the trial pages but not come-up with anything obvious about whether to continue its use or if articles can be added. May be a usual semi-protect for a period is appropriate rather than having to tidy-up afterwards. It takes time to check out this type of changes to see if they are valid, pop-ups are not really useful either for that type of change. Keith D (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It does seem continued SP is most suitable. The good faith anons can always suggest changes on the talk page as usual. Shall I make another request at RfPP or would you just want to take care of it? Northumbrian (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I will just do ahead and do it. Thanks. P.S. they need to improve on last Saturday's effort this week! Keith D (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers and agreed! Northumbrian (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Todmorden List

Keith,

Shaun Murray appears to have some kind of vendetta against The Todmorden List, which was added to the Todmorden Wikipedia page a very long time ago. His removal of the link is merely spiteful. It is as relevant as his own websites Todmorden Markets, or Todmorden Pride. And is even linked to from perhaps the longest standing Todmorden website, todmorden.org.

The most recent removal of the link was from IP 217.155.180.62, which a quick whois search reveals is Shaun Murray himself. An attempt to continue the grudge anonymously I suspect.

Please help to retain the link, it is relevant to the town. The website is regularly updated and contributed to by people in the town, and it has been published for well over two years now. It is not Linkspam or Spamming in any way to include the website as an external link on that page, and you will find no other links to the website on the pages of Wikipedia.

20:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasWheel (talk • contribs)

I have trimmed a couple of links, including the market one which is just advertising. My guess is that most of the links there need culling. I cannot really see the Todmorden List passing external links policy as it appears to have significant advertising on it, but I will leave it for the moment. Keith D (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated Keith, many thanks. I understand what you mean about advertising, but by far the vast majority of the content on the site is news and events etc. The business advertising is Todmorden orientated too, not just any old advert to make a buck. Bit sorry to see todmorden.org go, Keith P does well to keep it going and updating it. It's non-commercial, as the links are added for free.

Hopefully Shaun will back off a bit now, but I suspect he'll be less than happy about Tomdorden Markets site being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasWheel (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll add my thoughts on the discussion.

Todmordenmarkets.com carries NO advertising. It's entirely encyclopaedic in nature and purely provides information about the market. In that regard I disagree with your reasoning Keith. However, I can see the owner of Todmordenlist is going to object to it repeatedly so in an effort to maintain that information for Wikipedia users, I've created a wikipedia page for the market at Todmorden_Markets. I was involved with the creation of the website, though mostly it was a Todmorden High School project (the 15 year old girl that did the work was quite upset by it's removal), but it's not my website - it's ran by the market traders. Todmorden is a market town. The website is important to it. That's an entirely different proposition to Todmordenlist which is mostly unwanted and disliked by Todmorden's connected community because of past behaviour by it's owner.

I've made myself clear that removing the link to Todmordenlist is because of WP:EL already. I don't think DasWheel's protests hold any water in that regard because they're largely untrue. There are other reasons, outside of Wikipedia, that Todmordenlist may think I have some vendetta against them but it's entirely of their own imagination - it's not me, it's the entire town and business community. The only thing I've done is remove their link from wikipedia.

217.155.180.62 was me. Sorry, I forgot to log in. 'appens.

I disagree with the removal of Todmorden.org also. That would seem to be allowed under WP:ELMAYBE and it does provide links to other sites relevant to Todmorden. The reason that was included originally was because the wikipedia page was rapidly becoming a list of every Tod site and forum even if as in the case of Todmordenlist, carrying no encyclopaedic relevance. It was a compromise that most of the other people that had external links were fine with - all except one. --Shaunaegis (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As I noted above most of the external links there need culling as they are just links to organisations, but I was not ruthless like some other people. I am not sure that the market one is really notable, more looking like an advert with things like opening times, but will see what others think when they review it. Keith D (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Keith, as should be clear from the comments. Shaun is acting out of spite here and appears to see himself fit to speak on behalf of an entire community. I won't waste my breath on this bilious nonsense. I do now see that since his website Todmordenmarkets.com was removed by you as an external link, he has now given it it's own page on WP, despite this clearly being promotion of his own website. I also suspect some foul play with regard to Scribble Monkeys recent involvement. Sock puppet perhaps?

DasWheel (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you have drawn the correct conclusion there as Scribble Monkey is a regular editor here. Keith D (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the involvement seems very much directed toward one link, when other inline links are unequivocally commercial such as the one for Robinwood Activity Centre or Todmorden Hippodrome Theatre. I've just been emailed a link to Shaun's Twitter feed (http://twitter.com/aegisdesign see updates on 13/08/10 regarding The Todmorden List) along with information about this being the subject of a pre-action for defamation, and I feel this is further indication of the malicious nature of his actions.

DasWheel (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Keith, I am clearly trying in vain to preserve the EL for the website. Between Shaunaegis and Scribble Monkey, they seem determined to bully the link off the page even although it has existed on there without issue for years, and they are arbitrarily applying the rules and policies of WP to that particular link and not to the many others which would be far more deserving of removal under the rules. I am disappointed to see this kind of behaviour on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasWheel (talk • contribs) 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DasWheel (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot adds date to infobox template

I am curious why the bot is adding date parameters to infoboxes that do not have a date parameter such as in this edit, I thought that it was only supposed to add dates to maintenance templates? Thanks. Keith D (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the template {{Infobox weather}} (which isn't really an infobox) did have a date parameter, see the talk page of the template and edit history, and will again. It needs it because of the way that the template author wants to force a "citation needed" notice if no reference is given. The Fb.xxx.footer templates work in a similar way (and are just as big a headache). Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the explanation. Seems totally the wrong way to do it and you should just use a standard maintenance template. There are plenty of infoboxes that have information in them that are not sourced so why is this one different? Keith D (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are a bunch that work this way. I think the distinction is two-fold, firstly they have specific reference fields, and secondly a template author has realised the possibility of raising a CN when it is empty. I am not overly keen, a better solution might be to make the field compulsory, adn set it to {{CN}} explcitly when it is blank. This would then be easy for SmackBot (and other bots) to date. Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

Change of file names on wiki commons.

Hello, Keith D, Thanks for the welcome message. I have read on the Commons:First steps/Upload form page that 'you can't rename an image file yourself once it's been uploaded (you need assistance from an admin)'. The file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rocks_around_the_Cowper_Stone,_Nr_Hathersage_-_geograph.org.uk_-_185351.jpg is in fact a picture of Mother Cap on Over Oweler Tor in OS grid square SK2580, some distance from the Cowper Stone in SK2583. The description of lead mines and all of the metadata on the commons page for this picture is wrong, although I think I can edit this with a cut and paste from the revised source data on Geograph. That will still leave the commons copy of the image with a misleading file name. The file description on Geograph at http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/185351 has been changed to 'Rocks around Mother Cap Nr Hathersage', which might be a more meaningful name. Thanks. --Waugh Bacon (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I cannot help you here as I am not an admin on Commons only on Wikipedia. If you want it renaming then tag it with the {{Rename}} template it takes 2 parameters like {{rename|new name.jpg|reason for new name}}. I usually indicate in the reason that the Geograph details have already changed as that tends to indicate it is not controversial and gets done quicker. Keith D (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits to A.G. Barr

Please explain to me the purpose of restoring broken links to the A.G. Barr page. A reference is useless if that reference link is broken. Hence why I removed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgllo (talk • contribs) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If links are dead and are used for reference purposes they are marked with the {{dead link}} template, the reason for not deleting them is that they provide information which may help someone track down an archive version of the page or a new location for the information. See WP:DEADREF. Keith D (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Change of Legend destination link in a Geobox

I was going to make changes to the River_Derwent,_Derbyshire Geobox, replacing the Upper Derwent Valley symbol with symbols for each of the 3 seperate resevoirs, and include a symbol showing the Derwent's outflow, at Ladybower, into the Rivelin Tunnel to the Lower Rivelin Reservoir. I can probably figure this out myself, but can't change the Legend link at the top right of the Geobox. It links to Template:Railway_line_legend but should link to Template:Waterways_legend . Is this a problem with 'automated wikilinking' mentioned on Template:Geobox , or have I missed something? Thanks.

--Waugh Bacon (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have made the changes to the template. The legend is done using the {{BS-table}} template and to display the waterways legend needs {{BS-table|1=waterway}}. I have also changed the {{BS-header}} to read {{BS-header|River Derwent|River Derwent, Derbyshire}} to allow the v-d-e links in the header to find the template. Keith D (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Image for Eston

Keith, If I send you a photograph for the Page of Eston, North Yorkshire, Would you be able to put it up for me, As The one up at the moment is not very good.

Thanks

Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.203.17 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can upload it as long as it is one you took or appropriately licensed. You can send e-mail via the e-mail this user link on the left to send me your e-mail address or indicate where I can get the image from. 16:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User Dowietiger

Hi Keith,

Was wondering whether you might try to engage this editor? He edits Hull City-related articles; the edits are good faith, but, after many entreaties on my part, his sourcing is sporadic, engagement on talk pages almost nil, and edit summaries non-existent. Today at the Hull City article, he changed Solano from a midfielder to a defender, contrary to the reference, for no other reason that I can conceive except that he's temporarily playing in the back four today at Doncaster.

I reverted and was going to say something on his talk page, but I see from the page history that I'm the only one who's ever tried to engage him there. I don't want to come across as hounding him or as owning Hull City-related articles, and clearly my efforts are falling short, so perhaps another editor chiming in might help? Cheers, Northumbrian (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have prodded them with standard message about edit summary for now just to see if we get anywhere. Though I expect it to be ignored. Hope they can pull back the goal in the second half! Keith D (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, hope it helps, be good to have a few more conscientious editors. Anyway, I just heard Donny score their third over the Radio Humberside stream. Don't think that first away win in eighteen months is going to happen today...I think I'll leave the game summary on the 2010-2011 season article to someone else this time (updating it has been getting steadily more depressing since the season opener). Northumbrian (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ayala

Hi again Keith, It looks like David Ayala is set for a move to the Tigers, but it's not yet confirmed. Already had one drive-by editor add him without a source, that I reverted. Anyway, that makes me at 2RR for the day, so I can't revert again. Just thought you might want to know to keep an eye on it. By the way, do you consider Mirrorfootball a reliable source? The drive-by cited it on my talk page (though he linked to the wrong article and I couldn't find anything there confirming the move, though he later claimed rather snippily that the assertion is at the bottom of the article. Oy.). It looks a bit dodgy to me. (PS I can imagine how many times the article would be reverted if it weren't semi-protected by now!) Northumbrian (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Eston Photo

Hello Keith, Thanks for putting this image up for me, the link is to my Flickr Page, And I give you permission to use my Image. http://www.flickr.com/photos/scott1990/3762425491/

Thanks Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.215.228 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem in that, though you have produced the image, it is copyrighted with all rights reserved on the Flickr site. Can you change the licensing there to match our licensing requirements of at least {{cc-by-2.0}} Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 for images from Flicker. Keith D (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Or you could complete & forward this declaration and let me have the ORTS number. Keith D (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sheffield

Hi Keith, thanks for the heads-up. I;ve been away for a few days, and I may not fully catch up on editing until next week. A quick scan shows that the referencing is certainly no longer of GA standard, and it will be a lot of work to put right. I'm half inclined to move the new additions to a sandbox and reincorporate them into the article as they are properly referenced.—Jeremy (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Baxterley Church AfD et al

Thank you for your support at the recent Baxterley Church AfD et al which led to the the nom (RadioFan (talk · contribs)) withdrawing the AfD --Senra (Talk) 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Ugthorpe

The reason I removed Scarborough as the district for Ugthorpe wasn't, as you may suspect, because people there don't like to be told they're in Scarborough. Instead, it was just because most introductions are so cluttered with lists of civil parishes, districts, former districts, former counties and present unitary authorities with ceremonial associations, etc etc ...

The district, and much of the other relevant information, is listed in the infobox. If I were to read an encyclopedic article, I would be put off by the amount of confusing and often contradictory information presented in the first paragraph. I always try to imagine I'm an American, interested in English towns - I'd certainly get weary of reading stuff that could be found in the infobox.

In my opinion, the opening paragraph should let the reader know where the place is, and perhaps something distinctive to identify it a bit more.

But, really it wasn't a major action and I'm quite happy to leave it in.

Best wishes

Francis Hannaway 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francish7 (talk • contribs)  

Articles should be stand alone without the infobox which is not used by some outside users of the information. So in theory all of the information in an infobox should appear somewhere in the text of the article. Keith D (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wakey82

Hi, Keith. As this person has now resorted to personal abuse, I've reported the matter to WP:ANI. Regards. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Now archived

Thanks for the note, I was considering warning them about disruptive editing, after reverting edits on Airedale General Hospital & Fred Trueman last night. Keith D (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2010

Delivered September 2010 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 regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 06:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Watchlist

Hi Keith, Hope this finds you well. You had been using a python script to create WikiProject watchlists. You can stop doing that now. ‎Tim has created an automated tool that can produce the same results. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed this tool but it appears to only look at article space and not all of the other name spaces such as templates, categories etc. Keith D (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible spam account?

Cambridge International Centre, (CIC), Cambridge_international_centres, and List of University of Cambridge International Centres (CIC) in China, all contain just one link to ShenZhen NanShan Bilingual School, Cambridge International Centre, (CIC), A - Level, an English language high school in Shenzhen China. The remainder of the user's 24 edits concern the placing of the same link on a number of China related articles. It's not obvious vandalism - where should it be reported? Thanks for any tips. --Kudpung (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Best I can come up with is take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. The articles fall under quick delete g11 or a3. I have deleted the 2 articles. Keith D (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You've done what I would have, and thanks for reminding me about the spam page. I'll remove all the links on the oher pages and if they reapper we can block.--Kudpung (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. He's alredy recreated the pages again Cambridge International Examination (CIE), Cambridge International Centre, (CIC). There is no CSD critrion for deleting oages that are recreations of previously speedy deleted pages (that have not gone through AfD). The user is not affilated with Cambs Uni, but is a shill for a group of priate langugae schools tht offer courses to pass Cambs ELT exams.--Kudpung (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably still speedy under A7 or G11 as not really encyclopaedic but more than just a link. Keith D (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keith D. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI. It's a shame it's on my talk page and not on the article tp. Kudpung (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Not quite sure it will help as our article has moved on a lot now. Re-translating/aligning is is not really a viable option. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It won't help our article because there are plenty of people now who have seen how I started to reorganise it and prune it, and they are continuing to refactor according to our local guidelines. At the end of the day, we'll probably end up with a version that has little in common with the original French version. The interesting thing however, is that the French editors have seen what we have been doing and have decided that their aerticle needs looking at along the same lines. BTW, odd how such an article attracts vandalism, isn't it? --Kudpung (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{Talkback}}

Location grids

Hi, Keith! Than you very much for the suggestion of the NSEW templates etc. I'd seen them on the French Wikipedia but the French ones wouldn't work so that's why I made my own. So, I'll certainly give them a go. Thanks again! Francis Hannaway 20:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francish7 (talk • contribs)

Infobox UK place/local

Thanks for fixing the links at {{Infobox UK place/local}} and responding to my request.

Unfortunately, the West Mercia amendment was needed in triplicate but only made once. But considering the long list, that's pretty good going! I've given the details at Template talk:Infobox UK place/local#Disambiguation and redirect fixes.

Thanks again for your help.

— Richardguk (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25