User talk:Jimmy Pitt/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Jimmy Pitt/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Rugby union-related themes, you may want to check out the Rugby union Portal. If you are interested in contributing more to Rugby union related articles you may want to join and WikiProject Rugby union. You may also want to add {{WPRU Announcements}} to your userpage to keep up with Project announcements. You may even want to add these pages to your watchlist.

Again, welcome!  - Shudde ^talk 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Rugby union

Hi, and welcome to the Rugby union WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to rugby union.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPRU Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and a collaboration of the fortnight.
• We have a Fiji rugby task force that focus on Fiji related rugby union articles.
• Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorisation, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Shudde ^talk 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Werner Greeff

Hey, I saw you created Werner Greeff so I did a bit of copy-edit and expansion and nominated it at Template talk:Did you know. If you ever create an article large enough, you should consider nominating it yourself for Did you know (DYK). - Shudde ^talk 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shudde. I saw your edits -- very helpful for pointing me in the right direction Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ali Williams, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Werner Greeff, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Dale Arnett (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy-n-Paste Moves

Please do not make copy-n-paste moves as you did with Eggs, Beans, and Crumpets to Eggs, Beans and Crumpets. Copy-n-paste moves shouldn't be done as they disassociate the edit history which causes GFDL compliance issues. You should move pages instead. I have fixed this one. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 22:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that problem. I'll know better next time. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Crossing Paths

I think you and I were crossing paths on vandal patrol because you warned me on something I didn't originally do. :) I was rolling back an edit that was vandalism. Jmanigold (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Twin Elm Rugby Park

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Twin Elm Rugby Park, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.eorurugby.com/terp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

replied on talk page Jimmy Pitt (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discovery (observation)

I've asked an admin to see if he can do something about that character who keeps placing that bizarre essay into the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good! You're probably as fed up with him as I am. Did you mention to the admin that he seems to be using a couple of IPs as well as his user account? Jimmy Pitt (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I did. He has already permanently blocked the actual user ID. IP addresses are trickier because admins don't like to do long blocks of IP's that various people might be using. They usually put a short-term block on them. I expect the admin will just keep an eye on the situation and take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The admin also blocked the two IP's, for 3 days. We'll see what happens. The one item that guy uploaded -- Image:The22DISCOVERY.pdf -- isn't that the old Adobe symbol? I've asked the admin about it. I'm guessing he'll mark it for speedy delete, or ask me to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an Adobe-format document which is the contents of that stuff he keeps trying to post. Since he claims it as his own work, that means it's Original Research and can't be used. If it's someone else's work, then it's a copyright violation... and can't be used. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I could see it wasn't an image, so wasn't too keen on opening it. Even if it was legitimate, it's in the wrong place. Should be delete IMO. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The admin reminded me that that's the way any Adobe document appears. I downloaded it to read it. It's the same strangely-worded rant that the guy was trying to post. It might have been OK if the wording of it made any sense. Ironically, it's about "Intelligent Design". The admin is helping me come up with an appropriate deletion-nomination tag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the correct usage in the UK

The other variation is incorrect for usage in the UK. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is international. You should seek consensus, not impose your personal view as you have done on dozens of rugby pages. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is wrong "lbs" is the correct form in the UK. The Economist is not really a British publication. As the article says half the copies are sold in the US.GordyB (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The pluralisation of the lb is only to be applied for human height, 0 & 1 not being pluralised. This is they way of things in the UK, just seems silly that an edit war was started over the matter.Londo06 11:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. In my experience the avoirdupois pound is not used to measure height. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Goodwyn

We both recently helped expand the Pelham von Donop article. I have now created an article about his Royal Engineers colleague, Alfred Goodwyn. Are you able to add anything about his military career? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll see what I can do. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rugby Calendar

Could you add 2008 mid-year rugby test series and 2008 Autumn internationals to the navbox? Ta Mjefm (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Faust up to Date

Thanks for the excellent additions to this article. Can you add anything to other early works of musical theatre? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tutoring requested please

'Saw your fine job on List of authors of new Sherlock Holmes stories to which I contributed ( a very " first " as a fan ). Would like you to tutor me for further contribs I planned ( specially regarding wikification of entries ) Cheers PHILTHEGUNNER60 Aug. 20th Brussels 14:46 (local!) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

Sir Quett Masire

Botswana's Constitution actually allows recipients of British knighthoods to use the title. Both Sir Seretse Khama & Quett Masire are the only 2 Botswanans known to have been awarded knighthoods by the British monarchy. - (203.211.70.190 (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Agatha Christie

Hi Jimmy! With this edit I undid your edit, which had altered a wikilink so that it no longer went to a redirect. I did this as per WP:NOTBROKEN, a guideline which advises against such changes. I see that you’ve since changed it back. Personally, I don’t know which title should be used in the article, except that Ten Little Indians might be more familiar since many of the adaptations are under that name. I am contacting you here only because I did not understand your edit summary — “no need to introduce alternative title when it's referenced in the link” — and how it negates the rules/guideline at WP:NOTBROKEN. I know that the little edit summary line doesn’t give much room and that’s probably why I’m confused by it. But, what does it mean? Thanks! — Spike (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Spike, I HATE these edit summaries! Never enough space to explain what one means. I wasn't actually too concerned about the WP:NOTBROKEN business: if that were the only consideration I'd agree with you. My main concern was that "And Then There Were None" is referred to in the Christie article several times (seven, if I've counted correctly), so it makes more sense (I feel!) to stick with that, rather than introduce the complication of an alternative title. What I intended to imply in my edit summary is that the linked article (ie And Then There Were None) lists "Ten Little Indians" as an alternative title, so it's not as if the information isn't available. But someone new to Christie who clicks on what appears to be a link to Ten Little Indians and finds a page called And Then There Were None could be just a tad confused.

I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. I don't feel strongly about it, so I'll leave you to decide how to handle it.--Jimmy Pitt (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no. That’s perfect! Now I get it Jimmy. And, I agree that it is more important that there be consistency within the article. That is, if And Then There Were None is the title used in the rest of the Agatha Christie article, then that title should be used consistently throughout. Good job! (As an aside, WP:OVERLINK would suggest that only the first occurence of the title be wikilinked, so I wonder how that mix-up escaped the rest of us?! Eagle eyes you!) As for those oh too short edit summaries, and you may have already done this, if you go to Preferences at the top of the page, and then select the Gadgets tab, then go to the User Interface Gadgets section, and tick the box labelled, “Allow up to 50 more characters in each of your edit summaries …”, you can get a longer edit summary space. Be sure to save your changes! Nonetheless, I find I still sometimes spend more time trying to come up with a good edit summary/explanation than I spent making the actual edit! Thanks for the explanation; I really was confused. :) — Spike (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And I think that’s a valid point about how the piped wikilink could cause confusion to someone unfamiliar with the novel’s alternate names. — Spike (talk)

The Cabaret Girl

Thank you for your excellent work on this article!Singingdaisies (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish Rugby flag

You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion (WP:RUIRLFLAG). There are two ongoing discussions which may interest you here and here GnevinAWB (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Call for consensus/conclusion to current Ireland rugby union team icon

Hello, I am contacting you because you have been an active participant in the recent discussion on icon to be used for Ireland rugby union. I have tried to summarise the many strands and come to a conclusion based on what I perceive the consensus to be in this section - Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. To move the issue to a conclusion I am asking all participants who have signed the discussion to read my summary and comment on the validity of the approach I have advocated, before the issue goes cold. I am keen that the enormous efforts of all contributors results in a tangible conclusion on this occasion.Kwib (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Hi Jimmy Pitt! Good work on your recent vandalism reversion and warning editors. Don't forget to issue the next warning up the scale, for example if an editor has very recently recevived a level 2 warning, you can give them a level 3 warning, which is more sternly worded. (like here: User talk:222.155.154.177) Otherwise, keep up the good work! --BelovedFreak 09:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WHAT???????????

How on God's green earth could you call this edit "vandalism"? And why did you revert it, anyway? 74.178.230.17 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it in line with WP:MOS:TV#Lead paragraphs -- "References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist, including in the lead (i.e. Title is a...).". Sorry to have offended with reference to "vandalism". Jimmy Pitt (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Explanation appreciated, even though it makes no sense at all--I don't imagine you came up with the rule. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Jimmy Pitt/Archive 1. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do be cautious, friend. It's even easier to mistakenly label someone a vandal once you're using Rollback. But unlike your slip up that brought us together, when you do it with Rollback, there are consequences. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Could you explain why all of this is unconstrictive and vandalism? This is not what rollback is for and this is not the first time you've called someone a vandal. --86.45.197.58 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

racism in the Wodehouse book

You did not like my having put some comments in a different section on The Swoop so I moved it. Sorry, but it is important for persons who might give or show the book to a child to realise how racist it is. If a black child saw it he/she might be psychologically harmed, in my opinion. I asked the librarian in Menlo Park, CA to remove the book from the open shelves of works for children and put it under lock and key in a cabinet in back. When she saw the section I refer to and the illustration, she was glad to do so. People could still access it but a child could not idly pick it up. My comments are not an insult to any people such as English or Irish - there was a lot of racism in that day. As a schoolchild I read the American author Vachel Lindsay's poem The Congo, as did the whole class, but I do not think today that teachers have kids read about "Fat black bucks in a wine-barrel room, Barrel-house kings, with feet unstable, Sagged and reeled and pounded on the table, Pounded on the table, Beat an empty barrel with the handle of a broom, Hard as they were able,..." and on to cannibalism

---

Hope you will leave (or if you need to mildly Bowdlerize) my edit this time.

I have replaced it with a straightforward statement that his stereotyping is offensive to some modern readers. I do not consider that gratuitous insults about the English (or any other people) have any place in wikipedia, nor is it necessarily the case that everyone feels so strongly as you do. Indeed, to stereotype the English as "snobbish" could, I suggest, be itself construed as a racist remark.Jimmy Pitt (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Wow, that was quick. You want to delete the page i just started about ipec ltd. I am happy to follow the rules but cannot delete myself. However, the rules seemed a little funny. The purpose is surely to inform about the company IPEC Ltd, all information was factual, yes there wasn't much but there will be. What is the difference between the IPEC Ltd page I started and this one Toll IPEC? Again it is about a company with only information?? Just because it is a big company does that give them more rights? What do I have to say about a company to make the article useful and therefore applicable to wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastham85 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Zak howard

Hello Jimmy Pitt. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Zak howard to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. According to the article, Howard was the "first ever British sleding World Champion". That's an assertion of importance, sufficient to satisfy A7, but it's not sufficient to make Howard notable. That's why I PRODded the article. In any event, it's a moot issue now. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ron Hansis

Thanks for the pointer! It is supposed to be for Ron Hansis. Thanks again! Patken4 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Stealing Angels

Hey dude, call off the speedy delete on this, I wasn't finished with the article at the time (barely started, in fact). CloversMallRat (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of ''Daphne bholua''

A tag has been placed on ''Daphne bholua'', requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy of Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (May 2010)

You placed a speedy on article 5 minutes after its creation. Per talk on the main Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill there is a desire to split and fork it. The May article was a fork and I was in the process of simplifying the timeline when you put the speedy on it. Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!!Americasroof (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Construction Financial Management (CFMA) copyright speedy deletion notice

I am doing a page for the CFMA, National Chapter. The text from http://www.cfmalv.org was actually taken off the National Chapter's site.

http://www.cfmalv.org is the Las Vegas Chapter so they are actually the one's copying from the National site.

(Cpas2day (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

Hello

Thanks for helping out patrolling articles, article patrolling is wikipedia's last line of defense from going to hell.Sopher99 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankie Ballard

I declined your speedy tag of Frankie Ballard. The article asserts notability in that the singer is on a major label and has a charting single on a singles chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• A very stupid rule IMO, but eh. Process for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD Declined: Jyoti sr. sc. school rewa

Hi! Just to let you know that I have declined the speedy deletion of Jyoti sr. sc. school rewa, as schools are not eligible for speedy deletion under A7. This is explicitly stated in the text of {{db-corp}} that you used to nominate it for deletion. I would suggest Prod/AFD/Improve. Stephen! ^Coming... 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

San Juan Expedition

I think all the problems of the article have been solved. What do you think? ElBufon (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen your edits. Thank you for your help. ElBufon (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sumit Dubey

Hi, just to let you know that I have userfied the article Sumit Dubey, as the user was clearly writing an introduction to themselves. I therefore removed the speedy deletion tag. -- role^player 10:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right (re: tutankhamun)

You'right, I forgot to remove the advert tag before posting the article. Thanks for catching that. --*Kat* (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Morris (Composer)

Hi there! That article cites a credible and verifiable source. Still CSD, or does a source bump it down to PROD? Pianotech 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why

Why the csd ?, man, I have give more than enough international referneces... Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The person in question was a US Army colonel, who is unique because he is one of the few Sikhs to serve in the US Army, besides he is an author of a very important book Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity, isn't that enough, man  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't the deletion been too speedy, I think its racism  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2010

(UTC)

Ok. I am going to make it again I hope you won't mind  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But, man try to understand the thing, the guy has served US Army, OK ? He was turbanbed Ok ? He is a famous author there is no reason why he should not be on Wikipedia ! His book is there alreadyGandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

King Reptar

Don't delete my article of King Reptar because it is a new band and it doesn't have much of a significance, but it will in the future and please don't delete it. It will soon be an important band and it is the first band of 2010 and they will become popular, I promise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshorekkidz (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

dont delete

please dont delete my article!!! i did it for a friend and it means a lot to him. please dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmsmythe (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy of Cloud-based networking

Just saw the A10 on the above article I changed to a redirect. I don't think A10 works for a redirect, and it seems to be a reasonable term to redirect with. Your thoughts? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Racel Albeck-Gidron

hello jimmy. as the creator of this article named 'Racel Albeck-Girdron', i had a spelling-mistake. the name of this researcher is 'gidron' (hebrew: גדרון), and not 'girdron'. i have copied it to another article named 'Racel Albeck-Gidron' which i have created. that one ('Racel Albeck-Girdron') can be deleted. can you delete it for me? or perhaps you know a way to change the spelling of an article's title? meanwhile, i have already taken care of the 'orphan' tag. thanks alot. Dardar777 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much. that was a nice 'move' indeed... ( ; Dardar777 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking

• Jimmy, Thank you for the detailed response to my questions. I will try to take into account these new criteria, although it requires in each case, an additional and thoughtful consideration. For example, after your comments I would like to remove references to the year and city in the list of exhibitions of the artist Lev Orekhov. But then discovered that these links can be very useful for those who are interested in, for example in Leningrad in 1957 or in 1960. Thanks to them information about these exhibitions displayed in the list of articles about Leningrad 1957. In short, I will try to gently remove really unwanted and duplicate links. Kind Regard, Leningradartist (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rock cut tombs

Thank you. I had not found that article. The problem is, Sepulchre is quite an imprecise term. It is used to refer to the burial chambers of European churches as well as in the bible. The archaeological and architectural literature have quite a precise understanding of what a rock cut tomb is. the article on Rock-cut tombs ought ot grow to include sections on the notable clusters of such tombs in Petra, the Valley of the Kings Jerusalem and elsewhere. And I do intend to work on it, although I don't have much more time of this today. I also intend to write an article on Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel because there are many notable surviving examples. Do you know how to change the title of Sepulchre to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel? It could then include the Biblical, historical (Josephus, Byzantine pilgrims, etc.) and archaeological info on the ancient Jewish tombs, as many other articles on ancient Israel do. I would be back to add the material later today or later this week.Broad Wall (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I see tabs marked "read" "edit" and "view history" I don't see on marked "move"Broad Wall (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you. I freely admit to understanding ancient history better than I do wikipedia.Broad Wall (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help. I do appreciate when an ediotr who knows how to make the pages work helps straighten out a page. A project that I will continue to work on.Broad Wall (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Let me know if you need any help again; I have an amateur's interest in ancient history myself and look forwarding to reading your contributions. Jimmy Pitt talk 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

GPS Tuner

Why is this information demoted to an AD

Mrbean9876 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD tags

OK, a page consisting purely of "ma momma" proabably meets G3, but, considering the author is new, G2 might be a better choice to avoid biting a newcomer. :) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 14:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

G2 is for clear test pages. There is no evidence that this was a test page and -- based on the user's history -- every reason to treat it as G3. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Oak Furniture Land

A tag has been placed on Oak Furniture Land, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why have you placed this on my user page? I didn't create the article, I merely userfied it. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, Twinkle did that without me noticing - not really sure why. Please disregard it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was placed on your talk page because, as the user who "userfied" the original article, your name is listed as the creator of the page Oak Furniture Land (the original article's history is moved with the article and the redirect created by the move is credited as having been created by you). When JBGlobal (talk · contribs) copied his page back over yours, you were left as the article's "creator". Twinkle notifies the article creator when placing speedy deletion notices. Having noticed that situation, I alerted JBG as to the problem before the article was deleted, but perhaps not in time for him to do anything about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I should have spotted that and moved the message to the correct user talk page - but I have suggested to the real author that an admin might provide a userfied copy if there's anything that can be salvaged from it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the explanation. No harm done as far as I'm concerned, I was just somewhat puzzled as to how I came to be "credited" as the creator of the page, but I can see now how it happened. I suppose the way to avoid this would have been for me to have requested a speedy delete of the redirect? Jimmy Pitt talk 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would have helped, as a redirect from the main space to a user page is improper anyway. Admins have the option of moving without redirect, but we poor peons in the trenches have no such tool at our disposal.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oak Furniture Land

Hey Jimmy

Could you confirm whether my article is 'live' yet, or still a user draft?

Many thanks JBGlobal (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, it's been deleted because another user tagged it as advertising. You wouldn't have known because he placed the notice on my talk page, not yours. And by the time I saw the notice, the page had gone. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Matthew C. Harrison

I have just created the article and haven't even finished the first draft. I will be removing the speedy deletion tag, since I will establish the importance by the time I finish the article.

In short, Harrison is elected to serve as President of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, a 2.3 million member church body. Everyone of those before them in this office are in Wikipedia. CTSWyneken

Just for the record, you are supposed to ask for the csd tag to be removed. The template clearly states that the article's creator must not remove it. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Matthew C. Harrison

Please do not delete the article we are building on Matthew C. Harrison. He was just elected president of the LCMS. The Wikipedia article on the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod had erroneously listed him as the "current president." I corrected that to say "president elect" and then started the article on Harrison, which has been helped along by my friend Wyneken. Thank you. Asturiano (a new user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asturiano (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

First Overland

What exactly are the problems so far?

The book is clearly on Amazon, foreworded by David Attenborough, at number 18,000 and something in the sales ranking and is historically siginificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbambo (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on what you've subsequently added to the article, it may well be notable, but the first draft certainly didn't indicate this, and even the current draft cites no references to support a claim to notability. Merely asserting that it is "historically significant" isn't enough, you need to provide references from one or more independent and reliable sources to support the assertion.

The fact that the book is available on Amazon is not, in itself an assertion of notability in Wikipedia's terms, nor is its sales ranking or the stature of the author of the foreword.

All of this (and a lot more!) is spelled out at WP:NBOOK, which you could usefully read. If you can add references to show notability, you may, as indicated in the prod template, remove the template from the page.

I hope this makes it clear: it has nothing whatever to do with the quality of the book or of your article, merely with Wikipedia's standards of notability.

Incidentally, when posting on a talk page, remember to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end; this will automatically add your user name and the timestamp as a signature. Regards. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Something I should have added: you need to distinguish between the book, which may not be notable, and the expedition, which almost certainly is. For example, the radio talk that you've referenced relates to the expedition, not to the book, which hadn't then been written. Just a suggestion, but you might think about turning the article into an account of the expedition (which would, I think, be quite interesting), leaving the book merely as a reference to the article. Jimmy Pitt talk 13:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am beginning an article about the expedition itself. I have been writing the book article to provide a reference point for the expedition, as the information out there on the internet is poor. This is why I am trying to establish the page on wikipedia. Jbambo (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have some time I would quite like some more feedback - I have written up the page about the expedition and left the page on the book in a terse to-the-point format - is it all approaching ok? If so, can the imminent deletion be stopped?Jbambo (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to give some feedback, but I'm in the middle of editing a series of articles of my own just at present. If you won't think it rude, I'd like to delay answering until tomorrow morning, when I can give the matter some proper thought. Regards. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the two pages. You've put in a lot of effort and the expedition page in particular now looks very good indeed. Nothing to do with the article as such, but the third photo from the top is truly amazing -- I've taken landrovers into some pretty hairy situations myself in Africa, but never anything to compare with that! A few general observations:

• it's not a good idea to force the size of picture thumbnails -- users can set their own preferences, which reflect their screen size, etc, and it's best to respect that;
• I'm no expert on photo copyrights, but don't be surprised if someone (or some bot!) challenges your "fair use" assertion: it would be a shame, but it happens.
• I've made a few minor changes as I've gone along, mostly in punctuation or capitalisation, in one case to improve clarity, but there are probably others: one in particular in the Vehicles section that begins "They were intended to be used both as...": something's missing from the sentence, but I wasn't sure how to fix it while retaining your meaning. Incidentally, you don't need to capitalise a word that would not otherwise be capitalised -- such as jerry can -- just because it's wikilinked; the link will still work, as that example shows.
• the article would benefit from a few more citations: you refer to details of the Land Rover modifications and to earlier expeditions, for example, but there are no supporting references.

Now to the broader issue! I still think the book doesn't merit its own article. The best way I can illustrate this is by comparison: Sir Edmund Hillary authored numerous books about his expeditions to Everest and elsewhere, but while he is mentioned in many wikipedia articles, none of his books has its own article. The reason for this lies in wikipedia's standards of notability. An expedition is an historic fact and, unless trivial, will usually merit its own wikipedia page, though (surprisingly, to me at least) the 1953 Everest expedition doesn't seem to, it's merely a section in the page on Everest. A member of an expedition may or may not be individually notable: if the expedition was a major one, such as Everest 1953, the leader and prominent members (John Hunt, Tenzing Norgay, Hillary) may merit individual articles, but members who didn't have a prominent role and who did nothing else of note probably won't.

When it comes to books, they have their own notability requirements, which are summarised at WP:NBOOK. As far as I know, "First Overland" doesn't satisfy any of the criteria:

• it doesn't appear to have been the subject of other published works: Attenborough's foreword is not independent, nor is any reference to the book in association with broadcasts of the film;
• it doesn't seem to have won any major award;
• it hasn't been the basis for a film or other art form: again, both the book and the film derive any significance they may have from the expedition;
• it isn't an instructional volume; and
• its author is not historically significant and so doesn't confer notability on the book.

Given the above, I believe the current prod should stand; failing that, it would merit taking to WP:AfD. What I'd suggest is that you could add a new section to the expedition article, much along the lines of the one about the film footage. In fact, there's nothing significant in the book article that isn't already covered in the expedition article, so the former is really just unnecessary duplication.

I hope this helps and please don't take any criticism above as being intended as anything other than constructive. Regards. Jimmy Pitt talk 09:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I don't care that much about the book - I'll merge the information and have the First Overland page as a redirect linkJbambo (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nominated Lune Forest for DYK

Hi. I've nominated Lune Forest, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MC10. I've made one very minor tweak, but otherwise it's fine. Regards. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome; feel free to change anything you wish to. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question

WHY DOESN'T JIMMY PITT GET A LIFE AND LEAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD ALONE IT'S AMAZING THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING IN LIFE HAS THE RIGHT TO EDIT AND TALK ABOUT ANYTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hintz1 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Norbert Müller-Everling

Would you please look, the references are enough now! The translation from the sourece emergered from the cooperation with the artist. If you unsure , contact him as de:Benutzer:Passagero. greetings--Freimut Bahlo (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, my German is not good enough for me to understand the reference, but if it covers the main points in the "Style" section, that's fine. But please understand, this is not my personal whim: Wikipedia has a strict policy about biographies of living persons and if you don't provide adequate references you risk having an editor come along and mark the article for speedy deletion. I don't think that would be appropriate here, which is why I merely tagged the lack of references. Regards, Jimmy Pitt talk 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your answer. I hope I understand, what is the current problem. It is enough, to reference the main chapter Style with the most important works in the Bibliography? Most of the aspects of his work are all the same in this books, most of them catalogues. Regards, Freimut Bahlo (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, all relevant facts regarding a living person should be supported with references: presumably, the info in the Timeline came from the same, or a similar source? If so, I'd suggest you reference that section as well -- if you work on the principle of "the more references the better", you'll not go too far wrong. Jimmy Pitt talk 09:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

every life station or all in one? --Freimut Bahlo (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If one reference covers all, just reference the entire section. There's no hard-and-fast rule, and when you've been here a bit longer, you'll find that different editors have different preferences -- a few insist on referencing every individual sentence, which is fine if the material is contentious, or if the statements in a paragraph have different sources, but where uncontentious material all has the same source I feel that's excessive and I prefer to add a single reference at the end of paragraph.

While writing this, I've just had a look at the page and you've done a good job with the references, so I've nothing further to add. I have just made one minor change, however: the Manual of Style suggests placing External Links after the References. Actually two changes -- I've removed the tag about references. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you cooperation! regards, --Freimut Bahlo (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Geography Barnstar
		For your fine series of articles on Sites of Special Scientific Interest in County Durham, I award you this geography barnstar. Wear it with pride...or something. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pakistan air crash history

A tag has been placed on Pakistan air crash history 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! I didn't create the page, User:Pkpolitics did. All I did was add an "unreferenced" tag, but the page was deleted by an admin, who seems to have left a blank page behind. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Jimmy Pitt, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Jimmy Pitt/Bio. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

You shouldn't allow redirects based on capitalizations, as this would devalue and decredit the amount of English wikipedia articles claimed to be on wikipedia Sopher99 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What I should or shouldn't allow is irrelevant. I'm just a humble editor here. But in fact you are wrong. If you read the article on Redirects, specifically, the section WP:R#Purposes of redirect, you'll find it stated explicitly that one of the purposes of a redirect is Likely alternative capitalizations. The example it gives isn't exactly analogous to the WWTBAM case, but the principle holds good just the same. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quarry Wood

I think the fact they have used a blatantly incorrect plural, and the past reputation of incorrect information on the Stockton Council website as documented in Talk:Ingleby_Barwick#Is_IB_a_town_or_estate.3F_Part_II shows how much of an unreliable source the council website actually is. However the council website does go on to talk about 'Quarry Wood' in the document you refered to, indicating that the name is actually "Quarry Wood", and it just happens to also be a local nature reserve. If you feel strongly that it does need disambiguating, I would suggest by location is a better option because there are other Nature Reserves called Quarry Wood[1]. I would suggest Quarry Wood, Stockton-on-Tees or Quarry Wood, Preston Park or Quarry Wood, Eaglescliffe or Quarry Wood, Preston-on-Tees. Andrew Duffell (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the website may be inaccurate (and not just Stockton's, but most others, so it often seems), I don't feel it's for us to decide whether a council's website is a reliable source or not. If we go down that route, we'd have people saying, "Ah, but you can't believe everything you read in ----- (insert your least favourite newspaper here!)" and then where would our verifiability policy be?

Also, I think you're missing a subtle point. There's a wood called Quarry Wood. On that I agree. But there's also a statutory entity called "Quarry Wood Local Nature Reserve" and that's subtly different -- the Wood per se has no statutory protection, it's the LNR that has: one could even argue that the Wood has no inherent notability and that it's only the LNR status that makes it notable (though we do seem to have a remarkably laid-back attitude toward geographical notability). And while the locals may not go around talking about it as an LNR, that's not much of an argument: I don't recall, when I was growing up in the area, ever hearing Stockton-on-Tees referred to as anything other than just "Stockton", but that doesn't alter the fact that that isn't its official name.

But the fact that you unearthed a Quarry Wood that I'd missed -- and not just another, but another NR! -- does argue the desirability of disambiguation. I don't actually feel strongly about it, this only arose because I was doing what I thought was some unobjectionable preparatory work ahead of trying to write up a series of articles on nature reserves in Durham and I didn't expect to encounter such strong proprietorial feelings, so I'll leave you to decide whether you want to disambiguate it from the Maidstone one: if you do, Quarry Wood, Stockton-on-Tees would, to my mind, be the best of your four proposals, if only because that links it to the designating authority, but I'll leave it to you. Regards Jimmy Pitt talk 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You removed references

From the page of Mark T. Williams and then say the page needs to add citations. How else can one cite the articles without putting up the links that the articles originate from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.220.218 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

They weren't references, they were three links to the same web page that is already listed in the References. Four separate links to the author's blog promoting his book is at least three more than is needed. The "citations needed" tag asks for reliable sources to verify the content of the article. There are no such references.

You need to provide reliable and independent references, as required by Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which I suggest you read. There, you will see that the policy advises editors: Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. That is what I am doing.

The policy also lists the circumstances under which self-published material may be used as a source. One of the allowable circumstances is that the article is not based primarily on such sources. At the moment, the article is not just based primarily on such sources, it is based solely on such a source. That needs to be fixed, which is why I have tagged the page. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

--> So then if the article doesn't need the references, what "additional citations" are needed if any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.220.218 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained on your talk page, you need to provide references to sources that deal with the facts of Mr Williams's biography, not with his works. The article makes numerous statements about Mr Williams's career. None of them is supported by a reference to a reliable and independent source. To take an example, the article says that Mr Williams is on the faculty at Boston U -- how can we be sure? what's the source for this assertion? I could ask the same about every statement in the article, and in every case the answer would be, there is no supporting reference. Note that this isn't to say the statements in the article are inaccurate, merely that they're not supported by references to verifiable sources, as Wikipedia's policy requires. Reliable sources presumably do exist (which is why I haven't tagged the article for deletion) but, as I've said before, you need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy (linked above and on your talk page) and supply references to such sources; as long as there are none, any Wikipedia editor would be justified in proposing the article for deletion.

One more thing: when you add comments to a talk page, can you please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end; this adds your signature and a timestamp to the comment, so that everybody can see who wrote what, and when. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)