MegaPedant

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Big Brother 2009 (UK)

Dumped and The Apprentice (UK) ARE relevant to that discussion. It was stated that articles on Reality TV will never achieve such status due to snobbery - clearly not true. I revoked BB2006 from the GA list as it relied on sources from fan sites that had since been deleted. DJ 16:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the Broadcasts section. If not, where else does it belong? And it is not trivial - the decision has gathered coverage from various reliable sources, passing WP:TRIVIA and WP:RS. DJ 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be wrong. The voting is a major contributor to the way in which the programme is broadcast, detirmined and constructed, hence it belongs on the Broadcasts section. DJ

Nothing I have said was aggressive at all. I suggest you stop making personal comments and note that the issue is important and deserves to be included. I have asked other editors for their view on this issue. DJ 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your account has been suspended indefinitely following an investigation, the conclusion of which finds you guilty of sockpuppeteering. I'm disappointed in you Dale, you had much to contribute. MegaPedant (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Big Brother UK

Alucard16 has set up the Taskforce project page. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. I've been a bit busy lately. MegaPedant (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam BB7's article at AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Bettay. DJ 09:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose this proposal. MegaPedant (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

:)

Aww why thanks very much. I feel the same, and I'm suprised how strong this year's article is when looking back at the previous years' pieces. I can imagine that we can get it to GA a few weeks after the series finishes. :) DJ 16:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother 2009 (UK) - it's all been kicking off

After an afternoon of intense edit wars (too long to go into, you'll have to check the article talk page) the article has been fully protected until we can come to an agreement on the Housemates section. If you'd like to place your vote here, it would solve the issue quickly. I was under the impression that we had already reached consensus for "Option 2", but I must have been mistaken. Thanks, DJ 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly made interesting reading. So many "new" editors all deciding to contribute at once... hmmm, how strange. I have voted, for what it's worth, though on my own terms, as ever :) A friendly warning though: while I see this as a friendly notice try not to give anyone cause to accuse you of canvassing as it can only damage your case. MegaPedant (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also found that quite peculiar. And especially as they've stated that they don't watch the show...but I'm not directly accusing anyone of anything ;). I just don't see how, within the space of an hour, the whole article was fully protected for 24 hours over a simple edit war that didn't even break WP:3RR. Anyway, I understand the issue on canvassing, but I believe that this doesn't apply as I'm contacting regular editors of the article about a major change. Thanks again :), DJ 13:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it was you who requested the full protection, though seeing that it's current, frozen, state is with the short version of the Housemates section I have to concede that I was probably wrong. Who called in the admins then, or is Big Brother really watching? MegaPedant (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the new contributors, who I just sent a lovley message to.... Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#No. DJ 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know you care passionately Dale, and that's the reason we've had our spats in the past and will no doubt have them in the future ;) but I urge you to keep a cool head and stay civil. Please. MegaPedant (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that DJ called in the admins with his forum shopping. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So Big Brother really is watching. I'm curious Jeni, what piqued your interest in this Big Brother article, seven weeks in? Is it simply that AfD is on your watchlist? MegaPedant (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DJ bought the article to a lot of peoples attention when he went shopping, so its only natural that people come in to express an opinion. Thats the great thing about Wikipedia, anyone can edit anything. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Except when it's fully protected! MegaPedant (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another random editor just addead a "No" vote. I'm gettin very suspicious. DJ 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Jeni's allegations above? MegaPedant (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I chose to ignore them ;). DJ 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading material

You may find this interesting, I hope you don't mind that I included your edit to support my complaint - I'd be grateful if you voiced your views on the issue too :) [1]. DJ 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You may use anything I've written anywhere to support any point you might like to make Dale, but that doesn't mean I'll automatically back you up and as I've been mentioned on ANI I've certainly exercised my right of reply. The thing is, I've only seen things from the Big Brother perspective and I have to point out that you've had more rows with me in the past than with Jeni. I have no interest or involvement in any of the American Idol articles and I'm not a habitual watcher of ANI so I really don't know what discussions you've been involved in there, nor am I particularly interested. The discussion at Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#I'm going to suggest something radical... confused me a little as several people seem to have misunderstood what you were proposing. It's clear to me that you were suggesting two changes to the article's sidebar, namely abandoning the "real time" updating of the housemates' status (to which I expressed ambivalence) and, later, a change to the colour scheme for reasons of accessibility (which I supported but everyone else ignored). It seems a number of people believed that you were proposing to remove the sidebar entirely, which clearly wasn't the case, and the discussion rapidly deteriorated from then on. MegaPedant (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MSN

Don't be hesitant to use MSN as a source (I gathered that you were from your edit summary). It's a reliable organisation; part of Microsoft afterall and, if anything, I feel we could use it more. DJ 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My reservation was in case they delete items after a certain period. I would have expected ITN to be a reliable source too but I understand they remove items they consider stale. MegaPedant (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Something that can easily be achieved

As a member of the WP:BIGBROUK task force, you may be interested in the aforementioned discussion. DJ 14:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

BB10 - week 12 nominations

Hi. I was wondering if I could have your view on this please? [2]

The argument that these were not spoken nominations doesn't seem a compelling reason not to include them. All available evidence is that these were nominations from the 2 housemates. I don't want to get into an edit war if I'm barking up the wrong tree! Any thoughts? leaky_caldron (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that Siavash and Sophie did nominate. It's totally clear to me that they did. Their intention was not to nominate but Big Brother said that they would nominate, and nominate they did. It wasn't by choice and speaking in the Diary Room has nothing to do with it, but by touching and naming they certainly nominated. The thing is, Big Brother makes the rules, not the people who edit the article. The nominations for Bea (x2), Sophie and Rodrigo were as valid as any other nominations and add to the totals, just like other nominations. I'll add my views to the talk page but as I was away this weekend I don't yet know who was evicted and I'm trying to avoid finding out until I can catch up (though I'd be very surprised if it wasn't Bea). MegaPedant (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the changes. Don't look!! leaky_caldron (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates is nominated for Featured List status

Hey. Just a quick note to say that I've nominated List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates for Featured List status after the recent promotions of List of American Idol finalists and List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests. It would be nice for expierienced editors who have knowledge on Big Brother to review the article at its nomination page. I've also asked Darrenhusted and Alucard 16 the same favour. DJ 23:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Template colouring

I recall you mentioning that the colouring of the BB sidebar is too similar; I've set up a discussion on this issue here. DJ 18:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

BB 2009 (UK)

Hi, this message has been sent to you in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices

It concerns the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#Cite_Episode_template

leaky_caldron (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A straw poll has now been added to the discussion about sources in order to gather consensus. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kielder Viaduct

On September 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kielder Viaduct, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, cool! MegaPedant (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, MegaPedant. That's precisely the idea. Please be encouraged to self-nom. your next wikicontribution for DYK. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations totals debate

As a regular editor to Big Brother 2009 (UK), I am writing to inform you about this discussion on the aforementioned issue. Dale 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For info. there is an attempt to discuss the table matter you raised here: [3]. I also linked it in my response to Dale's question. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Occupations and hometowns

I've found sources on the hometowns you suggested (haven't added them in yet, just posted them to the talk page) and I've suggested a way in which we could manage the occupations there too. Dale 11:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ross-on-Wye railway station

Re your recent edit to Ross-on-Wye railway station; I agree that it was wrong, but I'm not sure of your fix. I dislike the use of |line=, |manager= and |owner= on any station which was never part of the post-privatisation national network; the fields |original=, |pregroup= and |postgroup= are available as alternatives, and I prefer these because their purpose is much less ambiguous. Since the HR&GR was amalgamated with the GWR well before grouping (1 January 1862 according to E.T. MacDermot, History of the Great Western Railway, vol. I part I, p.434), I suggest the following:

|original  = [[Hereford, Ross and Gloucester Railway]]
|pregroup  = [[Great Western Railway]]
|postgroup = GWR

and remove |manager= and |owner=. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It was a quick fix and I have to admit I'm more familiar with (and frustrated by the limitations of) the infobox template for bridges than for stations. It was clearly wrong as it stood and I hesitated before making the change as I wasn't sure I was improving things. I ought to have read up on the template rather than fiddling it to make it look right but thankfully you spotted the error. MegaPedant (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Now fixed. Thanks again. MegaPedant (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hereford Road Skew Bridge

Some of the parts in the history section should be moved to a separate section on the design and architecture. Once that's done, i will update it to C class. BNtw, is it okay if a nom this for DYK? Simply south (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking a look. I'll do that. And yes, a DYK nom is always welcome :) Kielder Viaduct is an article I worked on recently that was successfully nominated. MegaPedant (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the relevant material out to a new section. One thing that bothers me is the fact that the quote from the nearby information board is unreferenced. But how do you reference an information board? Well, I took a photograph of it but, while in that sense it's my own work, the information on the board is presumably the copyright of Herefordshire Council so I'm not sure I'm allowed to upload it. Perhaps if I reduce the resolution...? Any further ideas on how to improve the article would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks. MegaPedant (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on that last comment, you might be able to help me with something that's just come up... I have a photo of Aynho Park railway station which I took myself, but it's 2048 x 1536 pixels, 1.9 MB and possibly on the big side - I don't want to trim it, any idea how to reduce the resolution? Windows XP, Canon ZoomBrowser EX 6.0 --Redrose64 (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I always upload as high a resolution as I can. WP takes care of it and scales down accordingly and readers then have the opportunity to look at my photos at the highest possible resolution if they want to. If you still want to scale your photos, then you can use the Paint application that's supplied with Windows. You should be able to find it in the Accessories folder of the Start menu, or usually if you right click on your file you can choose 'Open with' and then 'Paint'. Once your file is open in Paint choose 'Image' on the menu bar and 'Stretch/Skew' from the drop down menu. In the dialogue box that opens you'll see under 'Stretch' that both the height and the width are preset to 100%. Change these values to whatever you want but keep them both the same, otherwise you'll mess up the aspect ratio of the picture. My camera produces images 4000 pixels wide by 3000 high and for web use 800 x 600 is useful so I change the values from 100% to 20%. Click OK and you'll see the image change size. Then click 'File' and 'Save as' and choose your filename and type. Job done. Other people may say you need Photoshop or some other expensive piece of software to manipulate images but for simple scaling Paint works fine and, best of all, you already have it. Cheers. MegaPedant (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If using Windows, use Publisher or PowerPoint.

They might be better but they cost a considerable amount of money and I don't have a use for either. Paint is quick and simple and it comes with every copy of Windows. MegaPedant (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorted now at no extra cost, see User talk:Redrose64#Photo size; the outcome may be seen at either User:Redrose64#Images or Aynho Park railway station. I didn't think of Paint because I've only ever used it for sharp-edged images (.BMP and .GIF files) not fuzzy-edged (.JPG). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to the article. From past experience, using photographs to illustrate different points in the architecture or just general features still fall within Wikipedia:ORIGINAL#Original_images, unless what you are saying can also be backed up by sources. Also through previous discussions with people it seems info boards cannot be used either unless again the info is found like on a website or in some source. Sorry. That last part i couldn't include info on things in the Dollis Valley\Brook.

OK, so the info board is out, therefore the quote remains unreferenced for the time being. I'll keep looking for a source - it might need a visit to Ledbury library or possibly a trawl of the local newspapers. It would be useful if someone else who has an interest in the subject could help. MegaPedant (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Other ways of improving are, for example, try to find more info on the town trail which might be relevant to the bridge. Any other uses of the bridge? I hope this helps for now. And I've nomed it. There are also sources missing for the design section. Nicely done so far though. Simply south (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to follow these leads. From here it gets ever more difficult to make any headway but I'll keep an eye out while working on other articles. I'm not sure what other uses the bridge could be put to - I mean, it spans the road, it used to carry a railway, now it carries a footpath. As far as I can tell no lorry has ever smashed into it but I dare say the occasional dog walker has sheltered from the rain under it! I'd really like to find out who the engineer/contractor was. I've searched the local council archives and the only mention is where a plan to widen the footpath along Hereford Road had to be amended due to the width restriction at the bridge. I'll try to find out more about the impact of the Town Trail and there is an interest in local cycle paths where further research might bear fruit. Thanks for the suggestions and good luck with the nomination. I've added some refs for the technical notes, brick dimensions, bonds, etc., and more Wikilinks. Almost every sentence now has a ref, which is way more than a lot of railway articles, where a mention of MacDermot seems to be thought to suffice. MegaPedant (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hereford Road Skew Bridge

On September 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hereford Road Skew Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

PeterSymonds (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It received more than 5,000 hits so I've added it to DYKSTATS. MegaPedant (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Skew Bridge and Culley

Hi there, thank you, that looks better now. Interesting article and very nicely done too, BTW. Icemuon (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have more to add to the section on Construction and I've found a rare example of the Corne de vache method in the UK, which appears to have been one of Brunel's (if anyone was going to build one, it would have to be the great IKB!). I also want to mention other materials, such as concrete, timber and cast iron. A huge number of bridges were built to Fox's pattern so that section is worthy of expansion. MegaPedant (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question I was asked recently at a model railway club, which one of you can probably answer straight off. If a masonry railway viaduct is built on a curve, what is the ground plan for the piers? There are three possibilities: (a) each pier has a rectangular plan, the inside faces of successive piers being at an angle so that the arch is narrower on one side of the viaduct than the other; (b) each pier has a plan in the form of an isosceles trapezoid such that the inside faces of the two piers making an arch are parallel; (c) the inside faces of the piers are perpendicular to the railway line above, so that each pier has a plan in the form of an Isosceles trapezoid, although a smaller angle than (b) and the inside faces of successive piers are at an angle, although a smaller angle than (a). Is there an article that you could point me at? I live at Didcot so my possibilities for visiting suitable viaducts are low. Some of Brunel's Thames bridges are near me - such as Moulsford - but I think that these are either short or straight. Sorry about my terminology if it's all wrong! --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are some leads you might like to follow:

• Thomas Viaduct, which was built by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, II, son of the man who originally proposed the ribbed skew arch. This design would seem to be of type (c) from your list of possibilities, "having the lateral pier faces laid out on radial lines". I should think a type (b) viaduct would be easier to build as it would be more like a polygon in plan than a continuous curve, though it would be less pleasing to the eye.
• Troyano's Bridge Engineering: A Global Perspective, which deals with both skewed bridges and curved bridges in section 4.6, starting on page 235.
• Neidpath Viaduct is both skewed and (slightly) curved.

I find the Four Arches Bridge at Moulsford absolutely fascinating. It's actually two parallel bridges that are connected by metal girders and brick bridglets. Both are brick skew arches and the original one has stone quoins, while the newer one uses unrubbed brick, presumably for economy. The contrast is quite striking and there are some nice photographs on the page for the SU5984 square of Geograph. MegaPedant (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. I did pass on the info to my original questioner, but he hasn't yet replied to me. Sorry --Redrose64 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he says it was very useful, thanks --Redrose64 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Verney Junction railway station

How's this for an explanation? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's will do nicely, thanks. It's not only interesting but well referenced too - the things people stipulate in their wills! I notice that Verney's grandson, the 4th Baronet, received Calvert as one of his given names. MegaPedant (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NNML and Greenford Branch

You did something to "the ugly" bridge nr Greenford on Template:Greenford Branch Line which was very soon reverted as the ugly map showed the triangular junction correctly under the LU line. I see you beautified Template:New North Main Line too. It by rights needs revertion to give the wye under the LU line.--SilasW (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comment on Britmax's talk page. He's the one who reverted my edit. My point is that the diagrams are intended to be topologically correct, not plan views or aerial photographs. As they stand at the moment the two templates are incorrect for the following reasons:

• The bridge carrying the Central Line over the Greenford branch is actually a pair of single track bridges, with the single line that enters the bay platform at the eastern end of Greenford station curving under the southernmost of those bridges, then rising in the space between them.
• The south to east curve leaves the Greenford branch line south of the point where the curve into Greenford station leaves the line, and furthermore it passes under the Central Line by means of a separate bridge, somewhat to the east of the bridge shown in the templates. The current template is completely wrong in this respect.

Living west of Greenford I travel over those bridges most days and can confirm that their abutments do not obscure the track as the current diagrams suggest – that's what I mean by "ugly". So, not only is the current version ugly, it is no more accurate than my version. Have a look at the aerial view on Google maps. —MegaPedant 10:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I bow to your local knowledge (¿original research?). Of course these icons are a very clunky way of showing detail. At least my tweak cured the bridge('s/s') transparency to which you had a warranted dislike.--SilasW (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

←What does local knowledge have to do with original research? Anyone who contributes anything about any subject to Wikipedia knows something about it. I merely travel over the line in question and observe with my eyes. What I see agrees very closely with photographic evidence, such as Google's aerial photograph. One confirms the other and that isn't original research. How do you accumulate knowledge? The diagrams are not meant to represent every minute detail. I agree that the bridge's transparency annoyed me, but so does the way it obscures part of the line. The junction is not located undeneath the Central Line, in any case – it's considerably to the south (or right, in the case of the diagram) and, more importantly, to the south of the point where the curve into Greenford station leaves the line. To draw it accurately would require a diagram much larger than the subject's importance warrants. So, while it isn't perfect I prefer the previous version (29 March) of the Template:New North Main Line to the current one (30 March). You and Britmax are much better with the diagrams than I am so here's a simple ASCII attempt to illustrate how the junctions are actually laid out:

                   To junction with New North Main Line (towards Perivale)
                   ^
                   |
                   A
                   |
                    \
  ----B---C---------------------> Greenford Branch Line (towards South Greenford)
 /           /
|           /
|          C
|         |
|         o
|         Greenford station
V
To junction with New North Main Line (towards Northolt)

A represents an overbridge carrying both tracks of the Central Line over the single track south to east curve. B represents an overbridge carrying the eastbound track of the Central Line over the single track south to west curve. The two Cs represent a single overbridge carrying the westbound track of the Central Line over both the south to west curve and the Greenford station curve. There is no junction directly underneath any of these bridges. —MegaPedant 12:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Big Brother 2009 (UK) GA nomination

I've noticed that you are one of the top contributors to Big Brother 2009 (UK). I am sending this message to inform you that the article is now nominated for Good Article status. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The question of on what day each week began has been discussed and consensus reached on the article's talk page but you have made changes against this consensus. I'm sure they were made in good faith but may I suggest you read the discussion and revert accordingly. You have made some major changes to the article and I'm unhappy with many of them. As an example, how does the photograph of Michael Jackson materially improve the article? the fact that he died during the series' run is all that is relevant - what he looks like is not. I feel this is adding a picture for the sake of adding a picture. Likewise the pictures of Henry VIII, Elizabeth II, Beyonce and Susan Boyle. You've fixed some things, especially the tenses, but on balance I feel you've damaged the article. Please reconsider. —MegaPedant 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

KOTM = DJ ?

Hmmm... I wonder. —MegaPedant 04:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That was my instinctive reaction too! Leaky Caldron 09:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The signs are all there: the obsessive desire to get the article to GA status, the arrogant and abrasive nature, the need to "own" the article, and the edit profile. Even the way he refuses to indent beyond a certain point on a talk page. This guy is no WP newbie and for a banned user in hiding he certainly lacks discretion. As an old adversary I'm sure he's watching this page, in which case I'm so sorry Dale. I tried to help you but you chose not to listen. I wasn't going to out you but you blew your own cover, and with it most probably your chance of redemption. —MegaPedant 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Skew arch

Thank you for your kind note. Your additions to both Skew arch and Philadelphia & Reading Railroad, Schuylkill River Viaduct are much better than mine. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rees's Cyclopedia

Hullo

I have been updating the article on Rees's Cyclopaedia including adding notes and references. Are you happy that the Add Reference template at the top of the page comes off? I've got in touch since you added it in 2010.

Kind regards

Apwoolrich (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tony. The problem I have with the article is that it contains huge swathes of information (such as the entire Contributors section) that still have no cited sources. You have improved the article greatly but I'm afraid I don't feel able to remove the template yet. As an example, I would expect the assertion that "most of [the 100 or so contributors] were nonconformists" to be cited; similarly the claim that of the contributors who were active in radical politics "one was gaoled for sedition and another indicted for treason." That said, if you or anyone else decides to remove it, I have no intention of starting a fight by reinstating it. Instead, I hope you feel encouraged to keep up the good work. —MegaPedant 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)