User talk:Mholland/Archive 3

Zico

mholland I need your help. I have uploaded a Image named: Super_Lab.jpg (Screenshot from Science Centre virtual tour, London Metropolitan University official website). But I don't know the licence of that image. Please help to figure out *Is this the image of my work? or *Will I insert non commercial and educational purpose licence? Please reply my talk page or here.Ashiqur Rahman 87 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Image:Super Lab.jpg is a screenshot from a copyrighted video/slideshow, and is therefore not your own work. For the image to remain, it must be labelled as such, and you must add a detailed fair use rationale, following the instructions at WP:FURG. Please also consider whether the use of this image really is fair use - if it is possible for you to take a photo of the same thing, and release it under a free licence, that would be preferable to using a copyrighted image from somewhere else. Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria only allow us to use copyrighted material when no other satisfactory alternative is available (text description, or a freely-licensed image).

I have added an appropriate copyright tag. You should supply a good rationale on the same page, or, if you find that the image doesn't meet the WP:NFCC policy, you can request its deletion by adding {{Db-author}} to the image desription page. — mholland (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reputation mangement

You appear to be a reputation management worker. Are you commercially employed to "correct" true but unflattering material about Universities and other institutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. On balance, I tend to find that I remove more unsupported positive material than I do unsupported negative material. I've not edited the article Kingston University since August, by the way. I merely gave an opinion on the talk page, to kick-start the discussion there. — mholland (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: comments in removed version regarding Diana Winstanley are referenced in the following links referred to on why-diana.org:

http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2032396 http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12326-f0.cfm http://icsurreyonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200surreyheadlines/tm_objectid=17609187&method=full&siteid=50101&headline=pressure-of-work-drove-mother-of-two-to-kill-herself-name_page.html http://business.kingston.ac.uk/diana.pdf http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.uk/search/display.var.901541.0.pressure_of_work_leads_lecturer_to_kill_herself.php http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,,1876675,00.html

Court document supporting comments regarding criminal charges against Donald Beaton is referenced at: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/beatonsummons.jpg

Numerous other documents provided on www.sirpeterscott.com to support factual reporting in Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Queen Mary

First of all, I neither want an edit war nor do I want to attack you. I am a German law student and I have never been affiliated with QMUL in any way, so you can assume that I have pretty much a neutral point of view and you can believe me, Queen Mary does have a strong international reputation; particularty its law school is considered to be one of the UK's finest. Now, I'm going to replace your edit with this quote:

It is a research university, with over 80% of research staff working in departments where research is of international or national excellence (RAE 2001). It has a strong international reputation, with over 20 per cent of students coming from over 100 countries.

and I'm going to source it with this link:

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/europe/uk/website/education/university/queen-mary-university-london/

I conjure you to just let it be as it is then. Kind regards 88.66.59.159 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotes (the above sentence is an exact quote) should go in quotation marks when you add them to articles in running text. I can believe you that QM has an "international reputation" (whatever that means), but I would argue that it's too vague a sentence phrase to be included except as an opinion, attributed to a reliable source. May I ask what http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/ is, and why it's more reliable than the Independent, which you replaced with it? I would also urge you to consider registering an account for your contributions - there are several benefits. Thank you. — mholland (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I changed it from It... to The College..., so that it is no longer an exact quote, and I would argue that it is not meant to be a quote, rather a fact written by the editor (me) which is affirmed by the citation given. I have no problem to add the Independent as a further source affirming this fact. A strong international reputation is not something vague, but something a university either has or not. In the case of Queen Mary, it is something that is clearly existent. Besides the afformentioned sources, it is also approved by a survey of recruiters of international law firms created by a renowned German law journal, which puts QMUL among the most frequently recommended graduate law programs (unfortunately I only have it on paper). The fact that a quarter of its student body comes from abroad alone affirms this fact as well. So how many sources does it need to get your kind allowance? I'm going to copy this conversation and post it on the article's talk page, as other people may want to give a comment, so we can go on there. 88.66.18.61 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Zico

Dear Mholland,
Though it is personal question but I like to ask you, are you working in London Metropolitan University, UK? You can reply to my mail: zico8788@yahoo.com if do not like to answer here
Ashiqur Rahman 87 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite all right. I am in no way connected with London Metropolitan University. — mholland (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn, and I thought trolls were only on Livejournal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittykittyuniversity (talk • contribs) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nottingham University Business School

Hey, I know you did alot of the merging fro University of Nottingham articles and I've been doing a fair bit myself with some recent articles. I wanted to ask your opinion on Nottingham University Business School, I am not sure it's actually notable, plus it's not exactly neutral sounding. The only other division to have it's own wiki article is the Medical School I believe. Previously I merged the vet school article into Campuses of the University of Nottingham but that was only two lines long. I am really not sure if Nottingham University Business School would fit in there. What do you think? Million_Moments (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would merge that article into University of Nottingham, because it's an academic department. If the building is especially notable in its own right, it could be mentioned on the campuses page. — mholland (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a great place (Nottingham U B S) I know of a few people who highly recommend it (personal view)OyeboOyebo (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC).

Stephen Joseph Studio

Hi. You removed the gallery from Stephen Joseph Studio citing the Manual of Style. I'm unaware of anywhere in the MoS that says don't use galleries within articles. Please could you point me to the appropriate section? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - the MoS might not be explicit in discouraging galleries. I was probably thinking of Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photo galleries ("only include a limited number of relevant photos accompanying article text"). If the article is as short as Stephen Joseph Studio, four photos of the same building from different angles is a lot. I think you did the right thing in adding a link to Commons instead. — mholland (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Institute of Cancer Research

Please can you tell me what is the copyrighted material that you believe I have used in my expansion of your original text? My intention is simply to make the Wikipedia content reflect the way we are intending to present The Institute to the world now... (I work there!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssmh (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Institute of Cancer Research (2)

Sorry, mholland - I forgot to mention that several of the so-called copyrighted words you've removed are in fact MY words! And I magnanimously have given myself permission to reproduce them here! I recognise that you are trying, for whatever reason, to protect the integrity of Wikipedia; but in this case I feel you have rather overstepped the mark and drifted into an attempt to take out factual information that both I and my colleagues here at The Institute would rather like to be better known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssmh (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Chichester Cathedral

Hi Mholland!

Just a quick message to remind you that Chichester Cathedral has indeed given me permission to copy a few things from their website, so I'm just dropping off a message to tell you I AM NOT copyrighting material. I agree with Mssmh, that you have overstepped the mark.

END OF STORY!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwal (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. There are a couple of related issues:

• "Permission" for you to reproduce material on Wikipedia isn't sufficient for the material to form part of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a free content work, and all content must be licensed in accordance with the GFDL. Chichester Cathedral must license the writing for general use: this means that anyone can edit, modify and redistribute the work in accordance with the GFDL. If the Cathedral wishes to license its material, the simplest way is for the original author to declare that text so licensed, and to follow the instructions on the face of the GFDL itself.
• Even if the text is released under license, I see a few problems with it being copied and pasted verbatim into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while the pages are excellent source material, I wouldn't agree that a biography of the current Assistant Organist forms an appropriate part of an encyclopedic article on a cathedral.

I have replaced the text with a few shorter paragraphs, which reference the Cathedral website as sources: this also solves the copyright issue. I hope that this is acceptable. — mholland (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)The police at Chichester tortured a suspect in custody (Oct 29,2004) Sgt K Edney, WPC D. Savage & PC Baker.)OyeboOyebo (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC).

N'cle University

thank you for restoring the Newcastle page. Admitunit (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. — mholland (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

hallam

sorry about the editing some times my tomfoolery gets out of hand, but i have found something to keep my self out of trouble, so i shall stop editing the said page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtpeppers007 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting Oxford Student Numbers?

I noticed that the data you provided for the University of Oxford student totals conflicts with the information the university gives here.

It does. Neither set of data is "more accurate", but both are based on the university's own information. Discrepancies usually arise because HESA reports every individual student, whereas University-supplied data usually uses a "Full-time equivalent" number. Because HESA uses the same method to calculate numbers at all UK Universities, it provides a good figure for comparing them. University figures often use different metrics and are less useful for this purpose. For this reason, I support the use of HESA stats across the board. — mholland (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Left comment

Hi, I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Student numbers at UK universities. Have a great day! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — mholland (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Surrey University arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Surrey University arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge student numbers

In case you missed it, someone recently editing the student numbers at Cambridge, but didn't change the reference tags. I'd appreciate it if you had a quick look. Bluap (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've adjusted the citation to match the document being referenced. There is a discussion at WT:UNI about whether these FTE figures are more appropriate for infobox use than the current figures. Thanks for flagging it up. — mholland (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Need some help and information PLEASE

Bold textI am doing report on value of Wikipedia for college class--please give me your personal feed back on value you find for yourelf and for general public. Do you daily go on Wikipedia? What knowledge of the middle ages do you have? please any and all information greatly appreciated home email is slwiltjmj@comcast.net thank you, mom5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.98.186 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

University of Nottingham

Mholland, on Thursday this week (2008 June 12), I will edit the whole University of Nottingham article in an attempt to have it elevated to A class status. I agree with your review remarks on February 2008 and I also have some concerns. Check the site the next day (Friday) and leave comments Omnis7 (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Image:Terry thomas.jpg

Please note that Image:Terry thomas.jpg is simply a cropped version of Image:Terry-Thomas&Morton.jpg which is already in the public domain. As regards Image:Rev george snow.jpg, this image is a photograph I took of a painting, and as far as I was concerned this made it acceptable for me to release into the public domain. While in the past when I did not know better I uploaded images which turned out to be copyrighted, I have since always tried to upload images which I have either taken myself, or which are free images from Flickr etc, so therefore please forgive me if I sometimes make mistakes in licensing. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that of course, you're acting in good faith. Please review Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, which explains some of the rules Wikipedia observes in relation to copyrights. It might also be a good idea to go through your past uploads to check that they do not violate anyone's copyright.

Image:Terry-Thomas&Morton.jpg is not in the public domain. If you look at its image description page, you'll see that it's tagged as copyrighted. Image:Rev george snow.jpg is also considered copyrighted: in most cases, the artist's copyright will extend for seventy years after his/her death; taking a photograph of the painting does not vitiate that copyright. If you have doubts or questions about the status of an image you're thinking about including, you can ask if there are any hidden copyright snags at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. — mholland (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Whats ur problem dude?

most people on here actually contribute to the project but all i can see you doing it ripping down peoples images. please stop it. i dont understand why you do it, i mean does it affect you personally if some images are used in places they shouldnt be? NO! so why the hell bother taking them down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.147.68 (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC) This wasnt me but I have agreement with it.I'll contact you later.OyeboOyebo (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC).

Speedy deletion of Image:Southampton Solent Univ logo.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Southampton Solent Univ logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Southampton Solent Univ logo.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

University of Cambridge article

Mholland,

"Organization" is the correct spelling (see the Oxford English Dictionary) for both British and American English. You may also like to see Oxford spelling, where it is made clear that the -ize spelling is more etymological. As the page of one of the foremost universities in the world, I wanted the page to be as linguistically sound as possible.

Fowler's Modern English Usage also explains the point well (some of that text is quoted here (my website)).

Could you consider reverting your revert?

A.C. Norman (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Per WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOSS, "-ize" is as acceptable as "-ise" under most circumstances. Both are correct in British English (I'm aware of the history), and the most important thing for Wikipedia is that spelling used in any one article should be consistent. At present, University of Cambridge does not use the Oxford spelling, so I would not seek to introduce it for some words only. Arbitrarily introducing it isn't considered good form, but if you raise it on the article's talk page and there are no objections, you'd be welcome to change all spellings to use the Oxford "-ize".

In general, I'd recommend being quite circumspect about introducing Oxford spelling as "the correct spelling". We've got a large number of articles using "-ise", which is considered equally correct. — mholland (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Exeter University shield.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Exeter University shield.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Keele

Hi, I see you've contributed to the Keele University article a few times. Assuming you're alumni you may be interested in this: Template:User Keele Grunners (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — mholland (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image sizes

I see you changed the image sizes again in the article List of University of East Anglia alumni. What exactly is the problem with adjusted image sizes? I see them all the time in articles, for example List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) which is a featured list. Given that wikipedia relies on free use image uploads they can't always count on them being appropriately sized so I strongly support the right to adjust image sizes to make them look neat and tidy. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style, "If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified". And the accessibility guideline suggests that "When possible, do not force oversizing of images that override the default user preferences".

I support these existing guidelines: overriding the default thumbnail display is only beneficial in a very few cases. At List of University of East Anglia alumni, I don't see any benefit to making the thumbnails much smaller than the default. It makes the pictures more difficult to see clearly and frustrates the few users who have set their prefs for larger thumbnails. Another thing to bear in mind is that however hard any web author tries, it is guaranteed impossible to determine exactly how a page will display on another user's platform. Fixing an article so it looks good for you and me may actually make it display worse for another user.

I'm going to guess that List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) is the way it is because Image:Samuel Pierce.png is only 96px wide, and the editors there preferred all the thumbs to be of the same width.

With all that in mind, I won't revert you at List of University of East Anglia alumni again. But I would encourage you to make suggestions on the MoS talk page if you think the guidelines are flawed in general. — mholland (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gloucestershire University logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gloucestershire University logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

University of Dundee edits

A fine job in cutting some of the nonsense from this page, but I was wondering if there was indeed a MOS guideline against the use of the columned listing format that was previously used in the 'notable alumni' section and if you can direct me to it. I see the pre-edit position in that section as being stylistically better. --Breadandcheese (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:When to use tables. The W3C has been recommending against using tables for layout purposes for a long time. {{Reflist}} uses CSS to generate columns, which is a better solution, but at present only Firefox properly supports CSS3 - in IE, users continue to see a single column. The layout at University of Dundee looks fine to me as is, but I wouldn't revert you if you put the table back in, until such time as IE becomes standards-compliant and we can replace it with CSS markup. — mholland (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

University of Hertfordshire.

Dear M Holland, I wonder who I am talking to.Firstly its Wednesday Island who took umbrage to my using the word Episcopalian. Then I had Theresa Knott. Then Mike Hobday who actually attends U of H. No conflict of interests there then?Oh yer pal Wed Is uttered the immortal words "Wiki isnt interested in truth just verification".Yup,cos truth derives from the latin for verification.Hmm. LAWYERS. U of H (and their DEAN OF STUDENTS DAVID BALL) will confirm who their lawyers are. Please, please forward my edits to him. Fifty year old institution? Yes. there are many nice students & staff there. COLLUDING WITH THE POLICE OVER A FALSE RAPE CHARGE IS ILLEGAL! You have been given citations from such an august body as the ECHR. Also the Hertfordshire Constabulary. Finally, if there are any "charges" to be laid against me please do so. We would not want a kangaroo court.(Do you wish a citation for that?) Bcc Daily Telegraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyebo (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

S. and Michael Marper v. the United Kingdom is a case which concerns the police/Home Office decision to continue storing suspects' fingerprints and DNA samples, even after criminal proceedings against them are closed. The University of Hertfordshire is not a party to the case, which does not concern rape allegations, false or otherwise.

False allegations are a serious business, but not relevant to Wikipedia's article on the University of Hertfordshire. — mholland (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear M Holland Thank you for your reply.Wikipedias article on U of H is ...yes...actually about Hertfordshire University. Like the Donnelly case it does not show the institution in a positive light. Either the entry here is an honest attempt to show "warts and all" U of H or it is an advertisement.Finally Marper has far greater resonances than you cite. It abrogated Art 8 & 14 of the ECHR and does not concern "Closed criminal proceedings" but DNA retention of innocent peole.Very much not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyebo (talk • contribs) 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The cases you've referred to do not show the institution in any light at all - they do not feature or involve the university. I think that other users have explained the situation quite well, so I've nothing really to add. Happy editing. — mholland (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear M Holland if the editing were happy we wouldnt be here.But perhaps we can reach an eirenikon. "The University of Hertfordshire was in the process of being brought before the OIA over misconduct". What do you think? De trop?OyeboOyebo (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

You should make suggestions like that at Talk:University of Hertfordshire - remember to back it up with a relevant, reliable source. — mholland (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Chichester Cathedral

I notice that you have assessed this article. I find the process of assessment pointless unless the person who does the assessment leaves a comment as to why the article has been asses the way it has.

When I read the wikipedia criteria for a "B Class" article, then I, frankly, would prefer the article to remain unassessed, because it patently isn't "B Class".

B Class article: Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR)

I am aware that the section on the Cathedral Choir (which I didn't write) contains material pertaining to quite recent events, obviously known to the writer, but not referenced. It reads as if someone who knows the choir well has written it. However, it is Neutral in its POV. Everything else is referenced. The language is clear.

What are your suggestions for improvement?

Amandajm (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Located some references for choir. There is one red link. Someone decided that Sarah Baldock was "not sufficiently notable". She is. The problem is being rectified. Amandajm (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The standard grading scheme is at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and it references the B-Class criteria, which are rather more flattering than the old formulation you've quoted. Since the introduction of a "C-class", the bar is a little higher than it used to be, and in my opinion, Chichester Cathedral meets the criteria.

I rated the article at B-class because it clearly isn't Start-class any more, and B-class is as high a rating as an uninformed individual can give. The next class up, GA-class, requires a review process.

My only recommendation would be that the article should be peer-reviewed to find out if there's anything substantial missing/incorrect, and then nominated for GA status. Sincere apologies if the drive-by assessment appeared unhelpful: I'll think twice before doing it again. — mholland (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that is not referenced now is the list of cathedral organists. I haven't tried to track that one down. I was unaware of a C category. As far as I know, an article that is good enough can be promoted to A without the peer review process of GA. I suppose GA is the way to go. Some smart person will drop in and check out the fomatting of all the measurements etc.

The review process is so different for different types of articles. Today's FA on the Tang Dynasty is full of circuitous language, clumsy grammar, etc, and very badly placed pics..... well, someone has fixed the pic problem. Amandajm (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

University of Chester

Hi there. Would you mind explaining what it is that I removed from University of Chester that led you to revert me? There are a number of style and markup changes that I fully intend to restore. Thanks. — mholland (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey. It was mainly the two statements that it is one of the oldest higher education institutions in the country, which was fully referenced and the highlighting of the fact that Chester's situation regarding Chester's status turned around completely between the 1930s and 1960s (the paragraph seems confusing without that). Many perfectly valid external links were also removed and, as you said, some of the formatting was made a bit messy. Thanks. - Green Tentacle (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response on my talk page. I can see that the external links are now being discussed generally. Just by way of response to your other concerns:

The claim that Chester is "one of the oldest higher education institutions in the country" isn't actually referenced. The source supplied is a university press-release which (in its Notes to Editors) contains the claim that Chester was "one of Britain’s first purpose-built teacher training colleges". I would be very happy to adjust the article to include this claim instead, unless a proper source for the current claim can be found.

I thought the link to the Robbins Report would be sufficient, should a reader want to know more about Britain's HE in the 1960s. I'll settle for finding a source to reference the "turnaround" in the sector, and just adjust the clumsy phrasing ("the UK was massively expanding its higher education capacity") if that's all right.

I'll leave it until the current EL discussion is more advanced before making any changes at all. — mholland (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Thank you also for your support on the WP:UKGEO discussion. I see the article now has no external links section at all. Sigh...

The best source I could find to Chester's age is http://www.chester.ac.uk/about/, though I'm sure I saw I better one once (unfortunately, I wrote most of the article before referencing was widespread in Wikipedia and have had to add all the references in later).

As to the Robbins Report, it's not a turnaround in the UK's higher education section (it's pretty much always been growing, though at different rates), but a turnaround in Chester's situation: it went from being threatened with closure to being proposed to join a very small (at the time) number of British universities. - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

NATO

You removed the NATO official YouTube website link from the NATO webpage. You don't think that's worth including? Erm..... if that isn't, what is?

Nothing's too deathly dull for you to achieve. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would include a link to http://www.nato.int/, and nowhere else, I think. I'm actually considering pruning the external links that are still there (this, for example, scholarly though it undoubtedly is, shouldn't be an external link on an encyclopedia entry about NATO as a whole).

In general, I do not think that Youtube channels are appropriate as external links. Video clips produced by a given organisation are, by and large, tangential to an article on the organisation. — mholland (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

YouTube deletion

You appear to be erroneously vandalizing pages willy nilly again. Is this out of habit or lack of productive achievements in your life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaursLoveExistence (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 December 2008

Please assume good faith here. I'm not vandalising, just removing external links which do not, in my view, meet the external linking goal of keeping such links to a minimum. As I suggested above, I do not think that Youtube channels are often useful links.

The onus is on you, as the editor who would like to include these links, to make a case for their inclusion - I'm very much open to hearing arguments in favour. Please consider refraining from adding these links without discussing them first. A couple of other things to bear in mind:

• You've been adding these links under a section head, "Video clips". Article sections consisting of a single sentence fragment are usually undesirable.
• Your edit summaries are sometimes odd and potentially misleading (examples: [1] [2] [3] [4]).
• Removing trailing slashes from URLs (examples as above) is unnecessary. For URLs pointing at the root directory of a server, it's my understanding that it makes no difference, but links to subdirectories should always end with the trailing slash.

Feel free to present a case for the inclusion of links to Youtube on the talk pages of articles concerned. Please don't counter-revert editors who disagree with you, as you did here, without also leaving an informative edit summary, a message on the talk page, or contacting the other editor to explain why you believe that their revert was misguided. Thank you. — mholland (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitals for job titles

Chichester Cathedral: please leave the occupations with their titles capitalised ie Master of Choristers, Choral Scholars, Assistant Organist etc., unless, of course, you are sufficiently closely associated with this particular cathedral so as to know that for some unaccountable reason they have dispensed with this normal mode of addressing their staff. Likewise, please don't make this change at the other cathedrals, either. Amandajm (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

not afraid of you

new ip is only a click away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.137.43 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're going to need it.[5] — Satori Son 21:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Loco about KCL logo

Hello, Mholland. You have new messages at Talk:King's College London.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wingspeed (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — mholland (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)