User talk:Keith D/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Thanks for the move

Hi, I just wanted to stop by and say thank you for moving the Palestinian cuisine page. I've been trying for days and it just didn't happen for some reason. Now I think, in my opinion, that was the final touch before I will proceed to nominate for GA status. Thanks. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem - just clearing out a few before the break. Keith D (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks again and Merry Christmas! Eid Mubarak! Happy Hanukkah and Kwanza! - whichever holiday(s) you take part in. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheepscar coordinates

Thanks for correcting them! It's good to see Wikipedia sorting itself out in response to a reader pointing out an error. My confusion came from seeing the name in connection with Durham, for example here, when I'd never heard of such a place. I looked it up in Wikipedia and it seems the article's coordinates have been scraped by sites such as Panoramio, which explains the problem. Let's hope the change will filter through. It's a shame whoever added them originally didn't check a map first. 79.68.191.40 (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of the co-ord data was loaded by a bot from a supplied data-set rather than added by hand so no checks were made to individual entries. We try to correct the information when some one points out an error, but it takes time to propagate to other sites that use the data. Keith D (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bishopthorpe edit

I see you were quick of the mark there with changes to the heading. I am just learning the ropes and its all 'under construction'!! Glad to get feedback too. DudeatBish (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. There is no way of knowing if an editor has an intention to continue to edit an article so when things are spotted, like this, they are corrected. It may have been vandalism that caused the problem which has to be stamped out asap, but it sometimes takes a few days before problems are spotted. Keith D (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeds

Hello there Keith D! Thanks for the contact. I only spotted the change because of the redirect made in the UK cities navigation template. I was really surprised by the article move. Looking at the discussion pages, this title change appears to have been something User:Chrisieboy has had his eyes on doing for a while. Under normal circumstances I would have done a revert too, but I've had trouble with getting much from Christieboy myself in the past. It does seem odd that he didn't ask a wider usership for more input. Do you think WP:YORKS would be able to comment? This change knocks it out of line with virtually every place in England in simillar circumstances: Salford/City of Salford, Carlisle/City of Carlisle, Bradford/City of Bradford etc. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to wait for Chrisieboy to reply, but only in the short-term (maybe 24 hours or so?). After that we could revert the change, or if we need to, I could take this to WP:UKGEO if you took this to WP:YORKS (<- it needs the shortcut I think!). I think the objections made by PamD and yourself are totally reasonable. Certainly there would be an outcry if this was done at a district or borough level - I'm thinking something like Metropolitan Borough of Oldham or London Borough of Newham! Leeds is a settlement within the City of Leeds metropolitan district and as much as a silly statement it sounds, it is a truism as I think we agree! At WP:GM I think we addressed the exacting issue on Salford well by making explicit in the leads of each what we were talking about. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI seems like a good place to take this yes (I hadn't thought of it myself!). I would welcome admin involvement anyway with regards to the user behind the move. It doesn't look like a bad faith edit, but a badly informed one!

I think the usual practice is for shortcuts to be in capital letters. One for WP:YORKS would do any harm I don't think ;). Keep me in the loop with this please if you can! Thanks again -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Chrisieboy has since editted but not replied on the talk page. That there are two articles on the city council for Leeds highlights exactly why I think this was poorly informed and too hastily done. We are encouraged to be bold, but I think an element of networking, consensus and commonsense should apply. Indeed the WP:RM process is there to avoid this type of mess. As much as I'd like to however, I don't think me giving feedback to Chrisie would help move this issue forwards.

It's a shame we'll have to wait for WP:RM to filter through, but at least we seemed to have formed a consensus that this should be undone. Please give me nudge if there is any followup debate to this as Leeds isn't on my watchlist and I may miss it! Thanks again for the contact, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This was a good call, on the part of all of us. Hopefully we can crack on now with improving some of the content in Leeds, West Yorkshire and beyond. I've replied to your point at WP:UKCITIES and hopefully addressed the issue. I'm in the process of trying to extract some feedback from Welsh editors as to how the UKCITIES guide is translating to settlements in Wales. If you spot anything else, particularly for Yorkshire, please feel free to give me a shout! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial moves

The Carpenter Gothic article was already moved and the main author reverted the change and put a note on the talk page asking that nobody move the article without discussion. So I simply plugged the article into the existing system for discussion, of which he was no doubt unaware. So I'd say that this is a controversial move. If you disagree, well... *shrug*, feel free to revert me. It'll show back up in the controversial move section soon enough when the author requests it be moved back again. Katr67 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the situation, I will leave it where it is, though I fear it just ending up in the backlog of difficult move requests unless there is clear consensus on the talk page for a move. Keith D (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Truby

Hey, I noticed you put back a paragraph on the Hornsea Secondany School article, the reason I deleted it was because it's not true at all, Oliver Truby is still in school and is not the same Oliver Truby from the Spongebob Squarepants cast. That is the reason I deleted it, I didn't delete it again because I thought you might take it the wrong way and take me as a vandaliser. --Jammy (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I did think that it was removed by vandalism, that is why I restored it. It may help if you give a clearer indication of why you are removing text from articles either in the Edit summary or on the article's talk page. That way we have something to go on other than the disappearance of what appears to be valid text. Now I know the situation by all means remove the text. Keith D (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New Link

With Regards to the Berry Banks Cottage Link: www.berrybankscottage.com Sorry I didn't see your message, as I have only just started using Wikipedia and don't really know my way around it. But please read what I have to say and consider this: I feel that the site we have built is very informative, and if you care to look through the site you will find that there is a lot of information about Whitby as a town. The information is presented in a very easy to follow way, and is a useful resource to people when looking into or considering going to Whitby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathankrawczuk (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To me the site looks at though it is just advertising for a cottage and other related attractions in the area. As our external links policy states the link should add value to the article. If you see the section "Links normally to be avoided" then I feal that this web site falls on several of these points. If you want further help in using the site then just ask.Keith D (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!

Not a problem, glad to be of service! Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Transfers discussion

Hi Matty,

I noticed your removal of the transfer info from Sunderland A.F.C.‎ with a comment of "rm transfers per discussions at WP:FOOTY". Can you point me in the direction of the discussion for future reference, as I cannot locate it on a quick scan of the talk page. May be it has fallen into the archives now.

Thanks Keith D (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Here is a discussion on transfers on club pages, which I found in the archive. However, going through it, the outcome on their inclusion seems quite unclear. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Predator

Please explain on the article talk page why Predator (alien) adequately describes the species in question and not just the alien character credited in the first film. Also, did you not read/consider adding my suggested lead sentence? If not, why not? The current state of the title and lead section not only doesn't make sense but blatantly goes againt WP policy regarding article naming. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

St Chad's pic

Thanks for finding this... I actually looked at Geograph, but just browsed the first few pages after a postcode search and then gave up (slightly surprised not to find a pic). Have now realised I should have done keyword search on "church", and it turns up easily! I rather thought that Geograph results were sorted by distance from the postcode specified, but obviously not. We keep on learning! PamD (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WNNX/WWWQ

Fantastic! Many thanks.

One weird thing - I think there was a move (from WNNX-FM to WNNX) at one point that left the talk page behind, so the WNNX talk page is missing. Is that something that's moveable? (I guess Talk:WNNX-FM to Talk:WNNX.) Thanks again! -- ChrisB (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Date Links

I notice you reinstated the date links that I removed from Whitby railway station - no problem with that, I only removed them after other editors removed date links from some other of my contributions. I assumed that I was using too many date links. Can you give me (or point me to) some guidance on when (and when not) to include date links please? XTOV (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Full dates should always be linked to allow for the operation of user preferences, while year only dates should only be linked if they are of significance to the article. The details can bee seen at WP:MOSDATE#Autoformatting and linking. Keith D (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Spying in the UK

I noticed that you removed my change to the UK article even though I supplied a reference. As far as I am concerned the information I added is accurate as explained in detail in the reference given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsontrueman (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference you supplied is to a site to which you appear to have created and thus you appear to have a conflict of interest The site also appears as though it is not a reliable source, try something like a reference from the BBC or similar source. Keith D (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

People from Leeds

Thanks for tidying up my error on Duncan Mackay... didn't spot the error myself. Cheers. Chilkoot (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up my mistakes

On the Disambig with links. I'm pretty new to the thing and was tried entering it with brackets in the address bar but I must have messed up because they didn't appear to work. Thanks again shall continue doing them that way Agent452 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Flooded article

Thanks for letting me know, I had not bothered to check the article afterwards (internet running slow today (large article)), very odd that TW would delete a big chunk of the article that I didn't want to delete. I'm just glad no one has given me a vandal note. :) . --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 23:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yellow-faced Parrot

I fixed some redirects and double redirects after the move. It would be prudent if you checked "what redirects here" of both the main page and the talk page after moving pages. Snowman (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up I thought that I had caught the double redirects for the main page, I had not considered the talk page having redirects but it may have from previous moves. Keith D (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page was ok. I have just realised that we were both correcting the links at the same time. I had several pages lined up to save, but I have just noticed that I only actually corrected one, which you would have done next anyway. Snowman (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It can take time to get through the links depends on how many there are and the response of the servers. Keith D (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Coventry

So far there are six people interested in starting a Coventry wiki project, including some senior editors. I have had a quick look at the instructions on setting up a wikiproject, and I think that having got some interest, that parent wikiprojects need to be informed as the next step; this would be the wiki:project West Midlands. I think that it would make sense to have a wiki:project Coventry, as Coventry tends to become lost in the wiki project West Midlands, but I am unsure if it should be a sister project to wiki:project West Midlands. Snowman (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cannot really help on this as have not delved into setting up new projects. The other one I am involved with was set-up by someone else, though I set-up the bits for the assessment and bot operations so may-be could help there if I can remember what I did.

I did think that may be it could be a work group of the West Midlands project but do not know how work groups are handled/structured. Keith D (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made the project page now; Wikipedia:WikiProject Coventry. -- Snowman (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - though I had spotted it and left a query on talk page re the templates & identifying articles? Keith D (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jconnis

Jconnis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a vandalism only account, please can you explain your temporary block, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As the user had not been blocked before I thought that a temporary block was in order, may be I was lenient being fairly new to admin. Do you think that I should give an indefinite block at soon as possible? Keith D (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keith, I'm no admin but it stood out because I've never seen a vandalism only account blocked temporarily, I assumed it was policy to block indef. No big deal - perhaps ask someone who knows about this stuff <g> ! -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I should be picking the plain 'vandalism' option for short blocks and the 'vandalism-only account' option for indefinite blocks. Will have to be more careful with the selection in the future. Keith D (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem :-) cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Priory School and Settle

Hi Keith, I'm sorry for what I did to the Settle article. I duplicated that image with the intention of replacing the copy with a picture of my own. Unfortunatly my internet chrashed in the process. As for the Priory School article, I'm not sorry one bit. What I said was entirely fact and was relevant to the article.

Please reply on my talk page if you so wish. Thanks, Toby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyo1 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The information you placed there is irrelevant to an encyclopedic entry so was removed. There are lots of things that may be fact but unless they are notable then they should not be in articles. Keith D (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Villages called Huby in North Yorkshire

Thanks for your prompt help. "Huby near Harrogate" was the first Wiki page I created [I lived there until age 4] and I didn't know how to distinguish the two. We always thought of them as "Huby, near Leeds" and "Huby, near York", but I appreciate that Wiki has different methods. NinetyCharacters (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Link

Sorry about the bad link. After I saw it had been removed, I went back and realized the site the information is on was already linked to the entry (Gunnerside info:). I have some pictures of Gunnerside when I was on vacation there last year. I have a good picture of the tea room located in Gunnerside, as well as some of the main road that runs through. Is there a way to add photos? Do they need to be previewed first? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarberry Ln (talk • contribs) 06:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You can upload images using the 'Upload file' link in the toolbox menu that is on the left, below the searchbox. Though I would have a read of the instructions at Uploading images before taking the plunge as you need to get the information on coyright etc correct or it will be deleted. Keith D (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your speedy response to my request to move Namdaemun and for fixing all the redirects yourself. — AjaxSmack 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WAUK/WRRD

Confusing as it might be (and I knew that it would be), the moving of contents was actually correct and perfectly fine due to the switch. Here's what happened;

• The owners of WAUK bought WRRD to move their format to that station. But in the meantime they're simulcasting the same signal together.
• The switch was made last week with the stations keeping their call letters, which I reflected in a rewrite of the article under the WRRD calls. I in the meantime redirected WAUK to WRRD to reflect the "main station" at the time under the WRRD calls, which I assumed would be kept for a couple weeks...
• But were switched on Tuesday. WAUK got WRRD's calls and vice versa. But I didn't find out about it until this morning, so I switched the article details to reflect the calls moved over to the 540 signal. Someone else who works with me on articles in the meantime made the switch for me without my knowledge, but I thought it was OK. WAUK had always been ESPN Radio so the moving of the WRRD text back to WAUK was appropriate (the WAUK article before the rewrite was jammed with promo-speak so the rewrite was in the making since the sale was announced).
• Once the new WRRD's format is known, I will re-breakout the details into that article and revert the current redirect when the simulcast is ended.

I apologize for the confusion which ensued with these articles, but the histories of each are actually correct, just a bit of a detour while they sorted out what they were doing, that's all. Nate • (chatter) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation, things are complicated - looks like I can leave you to sort it out. Keith D (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingston upon Hull

Hello again!

No problem at all. I can do a peer review if you like? - as a preparation for GAC?... Give me a short while and I'll take a look. I have to admit I know very little about this place so I'd be interested to read about it. From a cursory glance it looks good. Hope this helps.... I'll be back... -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've reviewed the article, leaving lots of pointers at Talk:Kingston_upon_Hull#Peer_review. Hope this helps! I enjoyed reading it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keith, thanks so much for keeping on top of the KUH work. Looks like it's pretty much up to us two or three. I'll take a look at the pointers this weekend and take a crack at some of them. We'll get there. Doonhamer (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And will also get some more sourcing in. Doonhamer (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to help with the geography (and or) history. Will this be OK ?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer and by all means step in where you can. History is not my strong point & would need to do some research to sort the comments out for that section so any help would be greatly appreciated. Keith D (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I did rewrite and source the entire history section last fall. I can certainly see adding to it when convenient, but the big job that really needs work is sourcing the existing unreferenced material. Doonhamer (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Keith. I've just added a climate chart to the Geography section and messed up the layout(Oops!). Have you got a fix for this,please?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry I have no fix for this one. There also seems to be a problem with the chart width between the 2 halves (top & bottom). I think I have seen similar problem on another article but cannot remember which. May be worth asking at Village Pump or on the template talk page. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it - it was Durham that has a problem with the chart overlapping the table. Keith D (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - both charts are OK on my browser. I got a warning (I think) that the page is 87kb long. Is there a limit and is it time to make some of the prunings that you suggested ?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The warning is an old one that recommended that pages should be under a certain size but in not really used now, Manchester is up to 107Kb. I would think that the page is OK without too much pruning, apart from the unreferenced bits, though I would think that we would need to go to summary mode if there was an FA nomination to be made. Keith D (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you fixed it - though I still see the problem with the top half been wider than the bottom, though the examples on the documentation of the template look the same. Just to clarify the bars are spaced differently so they are bunched left on the imperial conversion half. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean--- The effect is worse in some articles than others. I fixed the layout of the article by deleting the "float" instruction in the template. Trial and error, really!!--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I found out how to fix the problem of bar spacing - it is the source URL being long that is the causing the top half to widen. Need to put out a shorter title such as Met Office to the screen as per usual [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000 Met Office] Keith D (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice one,great stuff. Thanks, it looks a lot better now.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Shall I bat on with a bit more of the geography? We seem to have addressed the concerns in the history section and it could go on and on and on-- Hull has a lot of it!! PS I'll do references as well, but too long a stint gets tedious (dun't it?)--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would bat on if you can, I have done a few of the easy bits on geography. I agree the references are tedious when you are retrofitting them better to do them as you go along, the other tedious one is sorting out the dead links which took me several days! On the history front it may be time to start a History of Kingston upon Hull article. Keith D (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you can find a reference - the first reference in the Industry sub-section is dead but I could not find a suitable replacement. I also looked for more up to date statistics but could not find any suitable to replace it. Keith D (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I got the ref but it didn't say what date the "16% of trade" was for so I altered the text to fit.I guess it will have to be maintained regularly to be really up to date and accurate in that respect. I'll look for more stats later.(A point of interest - I had never heard of a "ten foot or tenfoot" before!)--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for locating the reference. You obviously do not come from Hull then if you have not heard of a tenfoot, there were plenty of them around when I was at school there, not so many today. Keith D (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keith, When you have time, please can you have a look at the Hull article in my sandbox at User:Harkey Lodger/Hull? I'm not sure what to do next.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder and sorry for the delay, I am just ticking over at the moment keeping an eye on article vandalism as I have not had much time to do any serious editing. I am away from Thursday for the weekend, back next Wednesday, so probably will have to be after that by the time I get round to having a good look at the changes you made. I was also hoping that Doonhamer may reappear with some input. Keith D (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You rock!

Peace out! Walrusfunk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Spyker F8-VII

Thanks for moving Talk:Spyker F8-VII/ Force India VJM-01 to Talk:Spyker F8-VII. DH85868993 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Newton-le-Willows on M62

Thanks for the edit on M62. I had put the pipe, because the link shown on my address bar for Newton-le-Willows had a lower case 'w' for Willows, so I wanted to make sure it displayed correctly. paypwip (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How to contribute text to an article that is blocked?

Hi Keith,

I was just wondering how to add new text or get someone to add new text to an article that I have information on. It was about the article LOL.

If you could let me know,

Thanks ( user name is Rudiggity)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudiggity (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way is to wait. I know that is not too helpful at the moment but you will be able to edit the article after 4 days of creating a user account. This is just a but of security in an attempt to limit vandalism.

If you do not want to wait then you should also be able to add the text to the talk page and request for it to be added to the article. Hope that helps.

Keith D (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudiggity (talk • contribs) 15:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield stations

How do you keep up with these changes? (rhetorical)

I was unsure what to do with Sheffield Wicker and Sheffield Victoria an now thinking about it have i done the right thing on Meadow Hall?

Anyway, the first two i have put a WP:RM as well as Oughty Bridge. See Talk:Sheffield Victoria Station. Simply south (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I had spotted some had moved - but had not investigated further - thanks for jumping in and doing some. I have been slowly working through the template list of closed stations to correct them as I felt they were out of step with most of the other articles.

I have gone with your change on Meadow Hall as I had split the articles to the redirected page yesterday to go to 2 different articles. Keith D (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just moved Meadow Hall again but to Meadow Hall and Wincobank railway station. I intend to redirect Meadow Hall railway station to Meadowhall station and create a disambig page. Simply south (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm not sure which i correct and searching for it only seems to bring up mirror sites. However, searching did also bring up discussions between Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) and JeremyA (talk · contribs). I will leave a message on both their pages. Sorry for the late reply. Simply south (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just extra, i am going to centre the discussion on the article so it cand be properly kept together. So now see Talk:West Tinsley railway station. Simply south (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I just assumed you had some information to hand. Keith D (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus to move the ones mentioned (plus probably the Rotheram one) at Talk:Sheffield Victoria Station. Could you as it req an admin move...? Simply south (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I could do the move - I was hoping another admin would step in as I had commented on the move but as it is well over the 5 days I will perform the moves. Keith D (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bar Convent

Hi. I notice that you accidentally over-rode some good work that I did on the above while correcting some pre-existing errors that I hadn't spotted. I'm reluctant to revert without notifying you first, but my changes were rather more significant than yours, IMO. Incidentally, the article is awash with links to DAB pages, and I intend to (at the very least) create a proper page for Thomas Atkinson, the architect - click the current link, then click the link on the 85 martyrs page, then click What links here....... urgh! Best - --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

From the diffs I cannot see the problem - but by all means revert my changes if you know there is a problem. I can always re-add at a later date. Thanks for letting me know so that I don't revert your changes thinking that it is vandalism. Keith D (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite

I was the on who misspelled 'lite' and ended the title with a full stop. I was reverting the previous vandalism to the title, and the correct original title wasn't available for reference within the page so I retyped the title. My mistakes were not deliberate vandalism. Sorry for the confusion. Derekhtodd (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. I had not investigated the full reasons I took the request at WP:RM at face value which indicated reverting a vandalism move. Keith D (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out! Derek Derekhtodd (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

LCHS

Why did you revert my edits? 86.156.83.7 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Because they are considered vandalism and the details are not encyclopedic in nature. They are also un-referenced and not given from a neutal point of view. Please see WP:Five_pillars. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your expertise on this topic? 86.156.83.7 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits 86.156.83.7 (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits made were reverted as vandalism. Please stop adding the same material which is not encyclopaedic and not notable. If you wish to contribute constructively to the article with suitable notable referenced material then your edits will be retained, but may be edited / modified / removed at any time by other editors. Keith D (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that the information added is notable 86.156.83.7 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Another disgruntled editor

How do you feel about not stalking my edits? Honestly, I don't care if its vandalism, do you have a fetish about my IP address? God if you feel that strongly about my presence on wikipedia, why not get a bot to revert my edits? And you know you can do nothing about real vandalism, the kind that doesn't involve humor or the F word. With a community relying on "The Google Hit Test" to determine notability, when someone decides to make it so that the Shah of Iran was an avid player of horseshoes in his youth, what can you do? All sorts of unsourced stuff remains on articles. Me not sourcing my vandalism does not mean it will be removed. You love outright, obvious vandals because they draw attention away from real vandals who know that with few experts on wikipedia and no additional credence given to those few experts you have, false little known facts are about as likely as true little known facts to remain on an article. When the excitement over wikipedia dies down and it turns as much into a game for the administrators and "Wikipedians" as it is for the vandals, see how credible "The Project" remains. Anyway, stay away from my edits, if you don't trust the other editors to revert my edits, perhaps you should ban me. 67.167.120.36 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments but I do not look specifically at your IP address, I just picked up on your edits to the article Ratatouille (film). If you continue to vandalise articles then you may be blocked, but why bother vandalising when you can just find something else to do. Keith D (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the Humor: Avoid using wikilinks page? Just happen to chance across that one as well? And I don't vandalize for fun. I do it because like you, I believe in something. And how is it I am disgruntled editor yet you thank me for my comments. Did you read my comments? Is that your function as an administrator, to trivialize the work and marginalize the person of every other editor? You know awful vandalism goes unnoticed for long periods of time ALL THE TIME on wikipedia. What do you have to say for your hivemind cohorts then? Is it possible that the sum of human knowledge does not come from the sum of all the friggin humans? Maybe if you weren't so bent on wikifying content, you might have a chance to take a look at some of that content and make sure it's actually true. I believe in truth, not 95% truth, but 100% truth. Anything less than the perfect truth is a lie. You do not have the perfect truth on wikipedia and never will. When a lie is put online for the whole world to read and touted as the truth by a respected online institution, a crime has been committed. People, (young, impressionable people mostly) have an inappropriate level of trust in wikipedia fitting only of a properly edited encyclopedia. I cannot make wikipedia as perfect as an encyclopedia, so all I can do to preserve truth is chip away at that trust. You tell me, which can be done faster, to bring the public's trust in wikipedia down to a level more fitting of an anonymously edited online encyclopedia, or to make wikipedia a perfect synopsis of Earth's past and present? Now you tell me who cares about truth more, you or I. Like most wikipedia contributors, I know a little about a lot (not a lot about a specific topic, as encyclopedia writers should be). I could contribute a bit to the project, make me think its worthwhile. At least respond, unless you seriously believe I have vandalized your talkpage with criticism of your hobby or livelihood (hobby, I hope). 67.167.120.36 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (Dan)

I agree that vandalism does go undetected for periods of time, but then you could fix it if you were so minded. Obviously you are trying to bring the project into disrepute as it is not perfect, but then nothing is 100% perfect, not even the printed material. Keith D (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Golcar

Hi Keith! I've just spotted your edit on the article to close the ref end tags. I have already edited this out earlier along with the complete removal of the website link, as noted in the Edit Summaries. The website itself is not yet built and only shows some personal contact details. This effectively makes it a spamlink. I have removed the link again. but will put a message on the users talk page warning him not to re-enter it until the website actually has some content of note. Richard Harvey (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and for tidying up. I did not check the sites in question or the history of changes, I was just interested in the truncation it caused to the article. Keith D (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Other one

Are you related to User:KeithD? It is a separate account. Also, see my earlier Sheffield Victoria note on something different. Simply south (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so - I have not come across the user before. Keith D (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Coventry - Brandon Marsh

Good Afternoon Keith,

I note that you keep removing my entries on the Coventry page relating to Brandon Marsh as a place of interest. A little confused about this as Brandon Marsh is a place of interest and is in fact in Coventry.

Maybe you could help me by clearing up the apparent problem.....

regards,

Llanon99

Llanon99 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I removed it from the Coventry page as it is not actually in Coventry but is in Warwickshire, as per details on the article also as noted in the edit summary by the previous person to remove the entry. If you wish to add it to the Warwickshire page then that is perfectly acceptable as it is more relevant to that article. Hope this clarifies the situation, may be in hindsight I should have explained it in a message on your talk page. Keith D (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I can appreciate your point, if Brandon Marsh were not in Coventry my addition would be indeed out of place.... Their address however is: Brandon Marsh Nature Centre, Brandon Lane, Coventry CV3 3GW. Their telephone number is for the Coventry exchange. Sorry but it is in Coventry.......

No big deal with this particularly, but it would be nice if visitors to Coventry, our home City, could find full information on available facilities, and for browsers to be able to see that it is not simply an urban jungle.

regards,

Llanon99.Llanon99 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, what ever the address is for postal purposes it does not mean anything apart from to Royal Mail, similarly phone numbers depend on the exchange they are connected to and do not determine the location for a place. If you look at a map the Coventry eastern boundary is just to the west of the A46 road, the road and all things east of it are in Warwickshire.

I would agree that visitors would want information on places nearby, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia. May be a more appropriate place for this would be Wikitravel which is a visitors guide to places. Keith D (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Beverley

Hi Keith,

The KS01 (Key Statistics #1) shows the usual resident population of towns such as Beverley. This shows Beverley's population to be 29,110, please see the pdf version of it if you have adobe reader.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=12733

and then it is part 1, sorry about my edits to Beverley.

Hamilton365 (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Many thanks for the link. I could not locate the right data when I looked, but then it is rather complicated site to find exactly what you are looking for. Keith D (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks..

For correcting my dodgy linking on my revisions to the CovBSoc entry.

Sentinel70 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Burdale railway station

Hi, I've just assessed this article, and noticed that there are two links to photos on Geograph in it. You can upload those photos to Wikipedia as they are Creative Commons 2.0 licenced. Instructions on how to upload and how to give the correct licence are on my user page. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I already know about uploading images. I did not put the links in, when I tagged the article I thought about adding the images but did not get round to it. Keith D (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now added the 2 images in place of the links. Keith D (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Watchlist

I've now set it up as a bot. I've already done a run that has updated the watchlist on WP:Yorks. In theory there is no limit to the size of the watchlist. josh (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for that, I have been looking for a way of doing this for some time without having to manually maintain a list of articles. Does the bot run on a regular basis or is it a manual invocation? Keith D (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I run it manually. Thanks for pointing out the bug. Looks like an encoding problem and shouldn't be too hard to fix. josh (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

SU WikiProject

I'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Headlands School and Community Science College

Hi, I'm done - thanks for your help. All we now need to do is to persuade our friend to leave it alone! BlueValour (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if he tries to reinstate 'Sixth Form College', according to their website it isn't, it's a school with a sixth form. Also, his change of 11-20 is wrong; according to the Ofsted site it is 11-18. BlueValour (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tidy up. I will keep an eye on it if I can. Keith D (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hull

Hello,

I just wondered how you was getting on with the Hull article? From a quick glance it looks much improved since my last visit. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the enquiry - I have got stuck at the moment with the remaining comments from the review you did. The editor who was looking at the latter sections appears to have not made any contributions since indicating they were looking for sources a few weeks ago. Unfortunately I have no knowledge on the popular music front or on accent, I was hoping not to have to pull the sections completely.

The main areas from the review that are out standing are points 19, 20, 21 & 24. I was leaving the lead expansion until the rest had been done.

Keith D (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It would be great to get the article upto GA sometime. Feel free to give me a shout if you'd like another review (I'm sure it wouldn't be as lengthy as the last!) and/or some aid with contributing. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you fancy tackling any of the 4 outstanding points then feel free Keith D (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Council of the North

You have to be kidding me? It was added by an anon who I presume was just messing about, nobody could be that ignorant of the basics of history. Next people will be adding "fact" tags to things like "water is wet". - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many people who would not know much, if anything, about British history, do not forget that we are creating articles for a world-wide audience. All articles should be fully referenced and I can see no problem with providing such a reference here. Keith D (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)