OldSpot61
Welcome!
editWelcome!
Hello, OldSpot61, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Cheers, cab (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Geographic Location box
editHi, Thanks for your contribution to Somerset but can I ask what the purpose of the Geographic Location box is? The article already includes maps & links to more & I can't see that this adds anything. I note you are adding these to several counties & wondered whether you had considered discussion this first at WP:UKGEO?— Rod talk 12:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, Rod. Thanks for pointing me to WP:UKGEO. I'm going on the wiki principle of trying out a change and letting others keep it or not as they wish. As you'll have seen, I've been doing this gradually, precisely so I can take account of any objections or suggestions for improvement. The only revisions I've had so far have been improvements, e.g. including sea areas, including NE/SE/SW/NW neighbours as well as N/E/S/W, including Pas-de-Calais neighbouring Kent, etc.
- I'm inserting these GL boxes because I feel they're a very useful way of getting information about a group of communities, going from one to another. If you take the Somerset page as an example, the map in the Infobox doesn't give the names of the neighbours. You and I know what they are but visitors from other countries may well not know them. The other map in the article has districts within Somerset, not neighbouring counties. The neighbouring counties are listed early in the Somerset article but (1) this is unusual - few other county articles do this - and (2) I feel the information is more easily absorbed from a map.
- I'll put a watch on WP:UKGEO in case this is discussed further there but please consider my reasons for adding the GL boxes before you revert it in the Somerset article. OldSpot61 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I haven't reverted it (?yet), but feel that Somerset, which is an FA, has been reviewed by a wide range of editors who felt it included all necessary information. I personally don't like the layout of the location box, but will start a discussion on UKGEO, where your comments/explanation would be very welcome, to find out what the consensus is.— Rod talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Earlier this week, someone proposed the Geog Loc box as a template-for-deletion because the layout isn't all that great but the unanimous response was Strong Keep / Speedy Keep, at least until someone writes a template which is better and at least as easy to use. OldSpot61 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've now started a discussion on UKGEO but noticing you've just added one to Bristol makes me think that you may have a problem with ceremonial counties v unitary authorities etc. Bristol is actually north of North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset, rather than the bits of Somerset within Somerset County Council & I don't know the best way to resolve this.— Rod talk 13:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm working from the Ceremonial Counties map. I didn't realise that only is Bristol a county in its own right but it's been one for 600 years! I could do infoboxes for unitary authorities/ districts-within-counties as well but I thought I'd do this gradually with counties and just see where we get to. In any case, doing this for districts would be a big job. OldSpot61 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe they have some use where an article is underdeveloped (your eg Allier) but not so much where an article includes the information (eg Idaho), but I think it is the appearance and (large) size which I find personally off putting. There might even be someone who claims that because it assumes North should be up it is politically biased towards the northern hemisphere - but I don't want to make a big issue of it.— Rod talk 15:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm working from the Ceremonial Counties map. I didn't realise that only is Bristol a county in its own right but it's been one for 600 years! I could do infoboxes for unitary authorities/ districts-within-counties as well but I thought I'd do this gradually with counties and just see where we get to. In any case, doing this for districts would be a big job. OldSpot61 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've now started a discussion on UKGEO but noticing you've just added one to Bristol makes me think that you may have a problem with ceremonial counties v unitary authorities etc. Bristol is actually north of North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset, rather than the bits of Somerset within Somerset County Council & I don't know the best way to resolve this.— Rod talk 13:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Earlier this week, someone proposed the Geog Loc box as a template-for-deletion because the layout isn't all that great but the unanimous response was Strong Keep / Speedy Keep, at least until someone writes a template which is better and at least as easy to use. OldSpot61 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I haven't reverted it (?yet), but feel that Somerset, which is an FA, has been reviewed by a wide range of editors who felt it included all necessary information. I personally don't like the layout of the location box, but will start a discussion on UKGEO, where your comments/explanation would be very welcome, to find out what the consensus is.— Rod talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
<- "it is the appearance and (large) size which I find personally off putting" I agree but I don't know of any alternative at present. OldSpot61 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Back in 2007 someone added it to Chew Stoke which I was taking to FA at the time - I didn't like it then & still don't, but it's still there. I don't think we need to look for "any alternative" but as I said "I don't want to make a big issue of it".— Rod talk 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of OldSpot61/Sandbox/Geoloc2
edit
A tag has been placed on OldSpot61/Sandbox/Geoloc2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gosox(55)(55) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Instead of deleting, I realized that this should have been in the userspace. So I moved it to User:OldSpot61/Sandbox/Geoloc2. Happy editing, Gosox(55)(55) 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
The article Tween (hobbit) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable concept per WP:FICT: no real-world notability or coverage, very little importance within the fictional work.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. +Angr 14:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, OldSpot61. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
edit Hello, OldSpot61. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
edit Hello, OldSpot61. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Fred Goodwin
editHello. I see you have previously contributed to the Talk page on the Fred Goodwin article. May I ask for your views on a piece I have added relating to his role in the BCCI liquidation. Thanks Lord Mauleverer (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)