User talk:Keith D/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Vera Baird

Hi Keith

First of all thank you for your interest in this - I welcome it hugely. That said, I would like to delete your recent re-insertion of the entry concerning the subject's parliamentary expenses and I am hoping to gain your agreement in this. I ask this as I believe strongly the entry contravenes Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people.

You comment that all of the criticisms appear to have been systematically removed. This however does not stand up to scrutiny. You will see that there is still extant an entry which could only be considered as being highly negative to the subject, that concerning the subject's driving ban for speeding. Even though this entry is harmful to the subject the facts appear to be correct, they are properly sourced, are not sensationalist and are generally appropriate for inclusion as an entry for the Biography of a Living Person as per Wikipedia policies. On the other hand, it is certainly the case, that the entries that I have removed have lacked the strict criteria as applied above and they have not been, as you put it, 'systematically' removed.

If we consider just two entries that I have deleted to demonstrate - 1. the most recent one, the entry from IP 176.25.251.111 concerning the parliamentary voting record, as this seems to have prompted your intervention (which, as I say, is welcomed) and 2. the one on parliamentary expenses that you have just re-inserted.

On the voting record entry. Before considering the content of the entry we can easily see that all the references given do not work so it is, in effect, entirely unsourced. When we go on and examine some of the statements we find that they are actually incorrect. The subject is claimed to have voted for mandatory ID cards, she didn't - the proposal wasn't for mandatory ID cards - she is said to have voted for the Iraqi war, she didn't - she abstained. This of course puts the entry well outside Wikipedia policy i.e. it's just false, but there are also other concerns of manipulation to give a particular spin which makes us entirely doubt the good faith (another Wikipedia policy requirement)of the submitter. On the subject's loyalty to the Labour Whip - well this was only true after she became a Minister and was bound by collective responsibility but was far from the case prior to that when the subject was a backbencher. For example, she actually led two voting rebellions against the removal of jury trial and against derogation from the European Convention in the first Terrorism Bill. On the subject's voting to extend detention of suspects of terrorism for 90 days, well this is true but what it lacks is a mention of how the subject again led a rebellion which drove the party leadership into accepting that judges should determine detention decisions and not ministers as had been originally proposed. This surely demonstrates that the entries are partial and inaccurate and deliberately selected to present a false position harmful to the subject. And finally we can consider yet two more points - the votes are a very small selection of the votes that the subject participated in, the ones chosen for inclusion in the text are entirely at the judgement of the submitter and one has to suspect a lack of balance in that judgement given the above; and last, but far from least, we can question the size of the entry given the overall content of the whole piece and consider that if someone was truly interested in the voting record of the subject they could simply follow the link to TheyWorkForYou.com given in the article.

On the parliamentary expenses entry. The 'United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal' (see Wikipedia entry) was of course a major scandal. All MPs expenses claims were thoroughly investigated, this resulted in some MPs being convicted of criminal charges, some resigning, some having to repay monies. The first thing to understand, for correctness and clarity in understanding the subject, is that Vera Baird does not fit into any of these categories, she was totally exonorated of any wrongdoing. Now consider the entry - it can be summed up thus "A newspaper suggested Vera Baird did something wrong but after full enquiry it was found she actually didn't." So, whilst it may be argued that the entry is correct it fails to deliver anything indicative of real substance, something that could be considered worthwhile for entry into Wikipedia. What light does the existence of an incorrect allegation in a newspaper throw on the subject given the inquiry's subsequent findings? At best it is a vacuous entry but it may be the case that it is deliberate mud slinging. Given that the other entries in the piece have been made with a lot of effort to ensure substance and verifiability through good sources this entry on expenses looks very incongruous when juxtaposed. So - as far as Wikipedia policy goes - it is inappropriate. In fact what it is doing is making Wikipedia a primary source of sensationalism akin to tabloid journalism which is of course anathema to Wikipedia's whole ethos. Add to this that the entry could be harmful to the subject, a living person, then it certainly contravenes the conservative approach required by Wikipedia policy on living persons.

Like you and Wikipedia I am wholly supportive of the concept of balance - but if any balance is to be made it must be made on factual correctness, good verifiable sourcing and of course be of real value and substance and not sensationalist. If an entry has all this then - even if it is harmful to the subject - it is of course valid. The expenses entry demonstrably doesn't have this - it is harmful to the subject - it is therefore invalid as an entry. Ianftwilson (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree as this type of section was inserted in the articles of most of the MPs from the last parliament and the information is sourced and valid. From your editing record you appear to only be interested in this one article and not wikipedia in general which leads me to think that you have some personal relationship with the subject and as such conflict of interest may apply. The article on Vera needs a lot of work to remove all of the bullet pointed lists and probably trim down on the information in these sections that are there hence the tag on the page. Keith D (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keith I'm sorry that you don't seem to have taken my points on board. I have stuck rigidly to matters of fact, evidence and Wikipedia policy and would have welcomed a discussion on that basis. Whether or not I have a 'personal relationship' with the subject is therefore irrelevant. However, as you raise it it is obviously of concern to you and so I will elucidate. I have met the subject I think three times over the last thirty years - on each occasion very briefly. To what extent that constitutes a 'personal relationship' I don't know but it would perhaps raise serious questions about my relationship with, say, my postman. It is of course true that, so far at least, I have only sought to edit this particular page. The reason for this is that, as a consequence of my interest in politics generally, I happened to view the page as it was and thought that the existing entry was woefully short of providing decent information on the subject. I decided then that I would cut my Wikipedia editing teeth on this page. (I had thought of doing it previously on the page for my home town but that wasn't as bad as the existing page for Vera Baird.) So, that's the irrelevant stuff dealt with I think.

On the point about the page needing a lot of work - I agree entirely and would welcome help on how it should be put into better shape. As you know I am a newbie and I am unsure how best to go about things - not only text addition but also tag insertions etc. I'll have another read on the help item concerning bullet pointed lists to see what I can do to improve it and I am more than happy to do the work under your tutelage given your editing experience. I am really keen to do a good job on this.

That leaves us only with my concerns over the appropriateness of the expenses entry. We are encouraged to seek consensus before we elevate to dispute resolution as I understand it. I also understand that the issue of MPs expenses generally was a significant issue and it may be reasonable to make mention of it for every MP from the last Parliament (I note that you say 'most' already have mention of it, perhaps the ones where it isn't mentioned need addressing). Okay, let's go along with that and so it then becomes a question of how it is mentioned. Perhaps if I first make mention of two other entries that I'm working on for inclusion you will see my difficulty with the way the expenses entry stands at present - one concerns the activities of the subject during the miners' strike, the other her activities in Parliament on the issue of jury service. Both of these entries will address what the subject actually did do but what the expenses entry does is refer to what the subject didn't do, it is this that is the problem for me. How about we change the entry to something like "As was the case with all MPs, Baird's submissions were investigated by Sir Paul Kennedy's enquiry and in her case it was found that she had only claimed for items that she was entitled to receive"? That would be simple, accurate, objective and avoiding any sensationalism. 213.122.227.42 (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Ianftwilson (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

For bulletted lists see WP:PROSE for details. Keith D (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks for that Keith. Are we agreed that I can modify the expenses entry in the way I've outlined? Ianftwilson (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I indicated most MPs as I was not sure it was every one as I had not checked out all of them. The text on expenses gives some background to what was investigated and is fairly balanced as it does show what it was the newspapers were alleging and the findings of the Kennedy inquiry. Your suggestion gives no details of any thing of the background to the claims and would leave a sentence out of context.

Well it would be in context if we had the sub-section heading "Parliamentary Expenses Scandal." It could then - in addition to the Wikipedia hyperlink reference to the scandal and something like the sentence I suggest - have as many references out to the newspaper coverage of the relevant times. That would ensure that Wikipedia was properly documenting what happened with further references provided and - importantly of course - it ensures that Wikipedia isn't becoming an explicit channel for sensationalist coverage. (As an aside it may well be an idea for every entry for every MP of the time to have such a prescribed section - but that's by the way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianftwilson (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Ianftwilson (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons categories

Hi Keith, not sure why you are adding commons category names to pages that don't need them. If the category has the same name as the WP page then there is no need to include it, explained at Template:Commons category. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This came about as a result of some discussion on problems caused by page moves that caused the link to the Commons page being broken if there was no explicit link from the {{Commons category}} template. A tracking category Category:Commons category template with no category set was set up for the purpose of eliminating those without any specific link to the Commons category. Obviously it will not pick up moves on Commons but is a step in the right direction of eliminating these type of problems. I suggested extending to {{Commons category-inline}} but this has not been implemented as yet as there was such a large set of {{commons category}}. Keith D (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't a bot that finds broken links be easier? Adding the page name negates the simplicity of the template function surely? At the very least the template documentation should be updated to reflect this change (which personally I don't agree with). Page moves are a problem, many editors miss the Commons link error and also the redirect that is created in any navbox on the moved page, the problem lies with this process not the templates. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The conversation I found on this matter (is this it?) is just a proposal from one editor, is there more conversation somewhere? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks like the outcome with the setting up of the tracking category - following which I suggested the extension to {{commons category-inline}}. I think the original would have been at WP:VPT and mixed in among a discussion on commons broken links. Keith D (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't see anything on the current VPT page. I can't see the consensus for the change and believe that implementing it across WP with AWB is not a good idea. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RBSA

Hi,

You may be interested in http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/RBSA_Backstage_Pass

Hope to see you there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sheffield City Centre

Just noted that you changed the order of "miles and kilometres" with the edit summary of "Miles first for UK distances". Personally I'm not bothered about the order but the main article itself has kilometres first in the lead, which is where I copied from? Green Giant (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just gone and switched that one as well. Keith D (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2012

Delivered October 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 09:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback MadGuy7023

Hello, Keith D. You have new messages at MadGuy7023's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Mary Joy

Hi. Did you see Talk:Mary Joy#APS Trading (Hull) Ltd.? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No had not really spotted that. I was trying to work out why the article had been tagged for WP:YORKS and could find no real info and the use of "seller" did not make things clear. Hence the tag. Keith D (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the YORKS tag is a bit of a stab in the dark really. If it transpires to be irrelevant then it'll be removed. -- Trevj (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on the talk page about removing the tag now the lead's been reworded. -- Trevj (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection level on Jimmy Saville

Jimmy Savile article will probably need to be fully protected, edit war is starting and could be rife on it. Only giving yourself this shout as I noticed it was you who originally semi'ed it. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, it is on my watchlist. I think that the user will be getting a short ban for violation of 3-revert rule if they do it again. May have to semi the Savile article as well. Keith D (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

IP editor

Hi, seeing as you've also been having some trouble with 86.42.12.125 (talk · contribs), I thought I'd let you know of this WP:FOOTY discussion. Basically, it turns out this guy has been constantly switching IPs for years, making troublesome edits. If you come across him again, I think it'd be best to just revert as vandalism; seems to me he's a troll looking for bites. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. I am having trouble over the timestamps and him reverting updates to the stats tables on players. Also sometimes end up with multiple stats updates for players as do not know where they are getting the info from. Keith D (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Loose ends"

Keith,
Please see Template talk:RailGauge#New request, Template talk:RailGauge#Disposition=or and Template talk:RailGauge#Another new one for three (one each) "loose ends". Peter Horn User talk 15:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have done the 2 updates. I think that on the new option you are not using the sandbox version for this. Also only the metric to imperial has been altered in the sandbox. Keith D (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:RailGauge#Yet another track gauge. Peter Horn User talk 03:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As well as Template talk:RailGauge#New request for 2000. Peter Horn User talk 22:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just done the 2 conversion updates. Keith D (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Baby got his way

What a baby. I hope you update his page regularly and promptly now and prove you weren't just being a childish, spiteful little brat. We'll see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.12.125 (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Arnott

Keith, I wonder if you could spare the time for a quick look at Jonathan Arnott currently standing in the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 elections and give your views on notability? Regards JRPG (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks to be OK as has had various different bits of coverage, though some of them may be borderline, such as just standing for an election and not winning. I would think that the chess representation would be good enough to satisfy notability. If he wins the up and coming election then there can be no question of his notability. Keith D (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Keith, I was concerned about UKIP primary sources. His chess ranking is 182 in the UK and 9123 in Europe -so no wonder he wants to get out :)

JRPG (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Took a drive today

And guess who I seen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.199.176 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Project Warwickshire

Good Evening Keith

Do you know where the manual updater for wikiprojects has gone on Toolserver as i can't seem to find it?

Thanks Gavbadger (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There have been problems over the toolserver but I have no info in to why this has gone missing. May be you could ask about it at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index as the bot pages are still pointing to the dead link. Keith D (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

University of Nottingham Students' Union Council

Hi, I'm writing up a motion to the UoN SU Council to promote the use and publication of media under free licences. As a UoN student/alumnus, I was wondering if you'd like to give your input.

Please comment at commons:Commons:Village pump#Motion to University of Nottingham Students' Union Council.

-mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Cosalt

Hi Keith,

I "talked" to you about a month ago regarding my Cosalt updates. User "Mean as Custard" has just undone all my updates and reverted the page to an outdated page. I see that you have made minor corrections to his update.

Rather than get into a dispute by undoing his undo, I've talked to him asking why he's done it. I'd be interested in your views so that I can get up-to-date pages back on the company. This is what I said to him:

"Hi Mean as Custard,

You've removed all my updates on Cosalt citing them as "trivia" and reverted the page to a factually outdated version (e.g. compositon of company board, current suspension of shares).

My latest update chronicling the period 2007 to 2009 may be a little longwinded and could be cut down/expressed differently but it is not trivia, is factually correct with references and is important and relevant in leading to where the company is today (i.e on the verge of bankruptcy but close to the conclusion of a court case arising out of a major purchase and fundraising in 2008).

The 2011 to present day section has stood since early September, the least I would expect is that you revert to this version (i.e. prior to my last major update) while I work on revamping my latest attempt into a more enclyclopedic entry, if that is what is required.

The company is a suspended, listed (ftse fledging) company, I think it's important that shareholders and the public generally have up to date infromation about it. Why do you see the new, albeit historical, sections as trivia?"

Isalolly (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I just restored some tags that they removed, had not realised that they had just reverted to an earlier version. As you say it needed work and as I said last time it needed trimming and layout changes to make it encyclopaedic. May be worth taking a copy of the article, as you had it, into your own sandbox and working on it there. You can then get an agreement from Mean as Custard as to what the article should be like. Your edits can then be moved to mainspace without any problem as there should be some agreement between you as to what should be in the article. Keith D (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons target

Hi Keith,

You do realise that your edits adding the "Commons target" to {{Commons category}} are entirely ineffectual, don't you? --Stemonitis (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is to prevent problems when pages are moved so that the link to Commons is not broken. Keith D (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there any suggestion that all these pages are likely to be moved? I don't think we need to worry too much about potential problems; there are enough actual problems to be dealt with to occupy any number of people. It might be better to monitor recent page moves, and check them for problems with the Commons link. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

These is no suggestion a page may move just avoiding problems that have arisen on several occasions. As you say most of the time it is probably ineffective. Keith D (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Danny Welbeck

Was a revert of unexplained removal of content, and I've now replaced the deadlink with an offline reference. There's a few online sources that verify his full name too, like Soccerway and the Daily Mail. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WP Yorkshire in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Yorkshire for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Worcestershire

Hi Keith. There are a couple of IPs (probably the same user) who is slow, very slow edit warring by reverting Hagley and Stourbridge related articles, especially schools, to West Midlands County. These locations are clearly in Worcs. Let me know if you come across any more. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Warwickshire

Good Evening

I have been thinking about merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Warwickshire and Wikipedia:WikiProject West Midlands for a while now with Warwickshire joining the West Midlands, as Warwickshire only has 9 active members and West Mids has 24. What do you think about it? Gavbadger (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would keep them apart as they are two areas. Keith D (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion.Gavbadger (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) By comparison, WP:WORCS only has 24 members too, but it is an active project. The project was well developed and although it may no longer receive a lot of edits, the members nevertheless have all the listed Worcestershire related articles on their watchlists and take care of anything that comes up in those areas. The project is also an excellent base of resources. It's possible that other apparently non active county projects work the same way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2012

Delivered November 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 16:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

Hi Keith, this is just a reminder that only checkusers can be using {{checkuserblock}}s in the block summary. These types of blocks also carry a ton more weight and can cause desysoping by Arbcom if a checkuser is not involved in the unblocking. This is in reference to User:80.2.37.65. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I had not realised that, probably the first one of that type of block. Keith D (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

fb rbr position

the template was never able to automatically tell the relegation position, and there were dozens of variants just to get a desired colouring. I ported a feature from template:fb rbr position fl to template:fb rbr position, so now this is possible. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

note that there is also {{fb3 rbr position}}, which has a different relegation position. editors frequently confuse these two templates, which is not surprising. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Take Me Home (One Direction album)

Could you please semi protect; it is constantly being vandalised by various IPs. AdabowtheSecond 22:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) AdabowtheSecond 22:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have given it a month of protection. Keith D (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

kenneth d

i dont know if you got this but it was a mistake i made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmom0306 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

John Clarkson Major

Thanks for the Wiki Project Bio tag on the article. I'll be interested to see how it gets rated. Although he is not Yorkshire-born are you in a position to tag William Highfield Jones, a peer of John Clarkson Major. WHJ has been nominated for deletion as a 1st citizen of a city in England appears to be not notable in US secondary schools (shows my bias). The only discussion so far regarding the deletion appears to be mildly in support of keeping the article. Btw, we appear to be isomers, I am a West Midlander living in Yorkshire. Keomike (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a WP:BIOG tag to the page, anyone can add the tags to get them in the appropriate project. I have just run through the Yorkshire categories for WP:YORKS so picked up John Clarkson Major as being untagged so tagged him with the Biography project tag. Deletions tend to depend on who is involved and some notable articles get deleted if a number of people do not want articles on X around swing the discussion. Keith D (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

David Burrowes

Keith, it's never very long before you fix some of the problems with my formatting. Thanks for doing that and I don't know why I miss so many. Re this item I was about to ask you, there is an unwanted [] in the first reference and I just don't know where it comes from. Any ideas? JRPG (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed that now - it was a linefeed in the middle of the title just after the colon. Keith D (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd looked at that quite long enough without seeing it tonight. Many thanks 22:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC) JRPG (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Domesday Book template

Many thanks again Keith for pointing out this template for Domesday references, it will be very useful as I make my way round the North Yorkshire Parishes and try to get them all to at least Start quality. Any other hints or suggestions always welcome. Rimmer1993 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

John O'Shea

Come on mate. If you are going to lock John O'Shea's page for no reason, then update his appearances. I was updating his appearances and stats every week and you lock his page because of a timestamp. It's pretty childish and pathetic to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.255.186 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It is also childish to insist on doing something against consensus. Keith D (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40