User talk:Roleplayer/Archive12

Recent block of 209.40.217.175

Hi,

I think it's worth pointing out my suspicion that this user is User:Synrgyprod in disguise. The latter achieved a level 4 warning earlier today for doing exactly the same thing. -- role^player 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I'm hoping that the autoblock will catch him if he tries to remove the tags using his account again. If not, I'll slap a block on that too. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would. Thanks for keeping watch. -- role^player 01:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire templates

Hi Roleplayer, Well done on the sterling work you have dome pulling together all the settlements for the templates. I noticed in the Chiltern template sometimes a civil parish is included with its constituent villages / hamlets whereas elsewhere a large village which is also the parish name is listed with constituent hamlets under 'larger villages and hamlets'. I think the latter category is a bit imprecise and results in some anomalies. For example, Chartridge is both a village (but is not that large) and the parish name for the other settlements included in brackets none of the are that closely associated with Chartridge. Bellingdon is a village of similar size in its own right. Asheridge is a hamlet closely associated with Bellingdon. Meanwhile both Hundridge and Pednor are somewhat isolated hamlets on different ridges/ valleys from Chartridge. Great Missenden is another example. The parish of that name covers a wide area and Prestwood aside many of the associated settlements are not that close geographically to Great Missenden and are quite autonomous communities. I would tentatively suggest either merging the two categories or alternatively, it might work to retain the ‘Larger villages’ category renaming it Larger Villages /civil parishes for the three Chalfonts, Chesham Bois and Seer Green and transfer the rest to the other category. Hope you don't mind posting here rather than the talk page. Tmol42 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiya. Where that came from was the format as was used on the Oxfordshire district templates, which I copied. They are a bit imprecise, I'll admit. However on the last one I created ({{South Bucks}}) I did change the "large village" header to "large civil parish" - it does make it a lot less ambiguous, and civil parish is a more precise description of where the population figure comes from. I'll change that over when I have a spare moment (unless you want to do it). I wouldn't suggest changing the header for some villages but not others - that way lies more confusion, imo. -- role^player 23:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How's that? -- role^player 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Referring to parishes rather than villages is a slight improvement, however I think the distinction between 'large parishes' and 'other parishes' is artificial. As mentioned above merging the two catgories would address this, with the only slight issue being where the parish name is the same as a constituent village name, e.g. Chartridge. By the way removed Dundridge as although it was historically a manor with manor house and cottages the latter have long gone and only a large farm house remains. Tmol42 (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That distinction actually came from the Oxfordshire templates that I copied. I think the idea was to break up a large glob of places into some sort of category for ease of reference, to make it look less 'clumpy'. I'm fine about the two categories being combined into one - as I say it was what was copied across from Oxfordshire.

As with the place name and village name being the same I've been thinking about this, and I think there are two options:

1. Name of parish (names of villages and hamlets including the one the parish is named after) e.g. Chartridge (Asheridge, Bellingdon, Chartridge, Hundridge, Pednor)
2. Changing the name of the category in which it is located to... something

I think I prefer the former idea. Yes there will be a lot of repetition, but it will at least be more accurate.

Agree, I think the first option is by far the best. What the set of Buckinghamshire templates illustrate collectively is the disparity in the number and size of parishes between the north and south of the country. In the north there are many, many more parishes, the vast number of which are very small and more akin to the hamlets or v.small villages in the south of the county which are organised into much larger parishes.Tmol42 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As for Dundridge, we actually have other place articles for places that no longer exist but did at some point. So for example there is Quarrendon, Bernwood Forest, Creslow, Hogshaw, etc. The idea about creating redirects for them with links in the templates and the core list is so that at some point in the future if someone should write a good article about them the links are automatically there. Just because a place no longer exists doesn't mean it shouldn't go into a list of places. -- role^player 12:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On Dundridge I take your point about it being in the list of places in Bucks, although it does not fall into the category of deserted village. Having researched it before there seems relatively little can be said about it other than it was once part of Missenden Abbey then a manor house held for a time by the Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury and then members of the Baldwin family.Tmol42 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Once I've finished work this evening I can make those changes to the templates... unless you want to beat me to it?!? I think it's worth reinserting Dundridge to the list of B places, even if it is not reinserted as a name of a current hamlet in the article in question - maybe a one- or two-liner about the history that you've managed to find out? -- role^player 16:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've amended Template:Chiltern as per our discussion. Does it pass muster? Also added Dundridge back into the 'List of Places'. Tmol42 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine. Remember to include The Lee in the list of places in Lee parish; also it might be worth calling the second section "Other Civil..." as towns are also normally civil parishes too. (Except High Wycombe) -- role^player 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

• News and notes: Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

• In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities

• Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000

• Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?

• Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

TuneCrank Deletion

Hi RolePlayer. The TuneCrank article was just deleted after attempted dialogue. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunocarbone74 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When an article is nominated for speedy deletion it can be deleted at any time by an admin if that admin agrees with the reason given for why the article should be deleted. Any admin would have seen the {{hangon}} tag that you left on the page and thus read the talk page to see the arguments for keeping the article. At the end of the day though you yourself have pretty much admitted that the subject is unverifiable so this outcome shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. For your information the deleting admin was User:Amatulic. -- role^player 19:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

PS if you dispute or disagree with the deletion of this article you can bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- role^player 19:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I sense some negligence on your end regarding the verifiability issue. I did not 'admit that the subject was unverifiable'. I was simply pointing out the wider policy implications regarding a literal interpretation of the definition provided. I am of the opinion that the references provided were verifiable should you have read the words and pondered the spirit of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunocarbone74 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have been given a very full explanation on why this article was deleted at User talk:Amatulic#The Deletion of TuneCrank, and to be frank not all admins would go to the extent that Amatulic did to try and find sources on your behalf in order to be absolutely sure that the website wasn't notable. I have given up my valuable time in order to engage with you on this issue at the talk page of the article that was deleted. You have been given more assistance than other editors are normally given, and I find it insulting to find myself accused of negligence as a result! Thank you for your time, please don't bother asking for any further assistance from me, as my refusal may offend. -- role^player 21:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Donald Burrows (musicologist)

Hello Roleplayer. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Donald Burrows (musicologist), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Profs are inherently notable sufficient for A7, though not necessarily WP:PROF. PROD or take to AfD if necessary. Thank you. GedUK  20:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; I have PROD'd it. -- role^player 22:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I created Donald Burrows (musicologist) primarily to enable disambiguation between the subject and Don Burrows, an Australian jazz musician. Previously some links to Professor Burrows were erroneously pointing to the Don Burrows article (see "What links here"). I guess if Prof Burrows is not notable then those links should just be removed. However, from studying music at the OU I do know that Prof Burrows is an internationally recognised Handel scholar. Don't have time to research and write his article though, hence the stub. Thanks. Lonegroover (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the article has now been improved significantly by another user, so I am satisfied, and have removed it from my watchlist. -- role^player 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Voodoo Gods

Hello Roleplayer. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Voodoo Gods, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having members who are or were members of a notable band indicates importance/significance. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, I didn't know that. Thank you for letting me know. -- role^player 00:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's an indication of enough importance to avoid speedy deletion, but it doesn't make the band notable. You can use WP:PROD or WP:AfD to nominate the article for deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now. If it's still there tomorrow afternoon I'll have a second glance then. Night night! -- role^player 00:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion via afd. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voodoo Gods. -- role^player 13:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On further inspection, I believe GreenRunner0 is right—three band members have their own Wikipedia articles, which probably makes the band notable. It wasn't clear yesterday because their names weren't Wikilinked in the article. Sorry if I steered you wrong. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, you win some you lose some! I have withdrawn the nomination. -- role^player 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re LDSGAinfoListTop

I did wonder if it was supposed to be a template! -- role^player 13:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I was actually taging it myself but you beat me to it.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should really be working, but this is kind of addictive... -- role^player 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. I to should be working, but am addicted. We may need to start a support group.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What like Wikipedia:Wikipedians anonymous? -- role^player 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sound good to me. Here are the 12 steps

1. We admitted we were powerless over Wikipedia.
2. Came to believe that no power greater than Wikipedia could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of Wikipedia.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our Wikipedia edits.
5. Admitted to Wikipedia and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have Wikipedia remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Wikipedia to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all Wikipedians we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such Wikipedians wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory of our Wikipedia edits and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Wikipedia.

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're desperate to create it now aren't you? I'm like that little demon sitting on your shoulder egging you on! Mwahahahahaaaa!!! -- role^player 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAH!!! Now I better really get back to work.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		The Barnstar is awarded because I still get a laugh out of this conversation after an entire week. Thanks for the laugh.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you kind sir / madam / thing. I shall treasure it for always. -- role^player 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim denley

You said: Author should not have removed the PROD-BLP tag, since no reference sources have been added.

What is the proper protocol in that instance? Do we put the BLP PROD back in? I thought that once the PROD was contested it's either the page is kept or it goes to afd? Can you enlighten me please? -- role^player 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Unlike conventional PROD templates, the PROD-BLP template mustn't be removed (by anyone) unless at least one reference source has been added. The correct procedure would have been to revert the removal (i.e. re-add the template) and possibly warn the editor that PROD-BLP templates should not be removed. However, now that an AfD has been started, there is no need to go back and re-add the PROD template, and we can just let the AfD run its course. --DAJF (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's really helpful to know. -- role^player 09:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your Flackwell Heath edit summary "I should use preview more..."

What was that you were saying?!? -- role^player 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice one! 35 edits to add 3000 bytes is probably a record of some kind... :) The difference is, of course, that you totally rewrote a poorly sourced biography and turned it into a fairly strong article in the space of two hours. I added one sentence and a link with a typo... Alzarian16 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news

• In the news: WikiLeaks and Wikipedia; Google–WP collaboration to translate health information

• Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky

• Dispatches: Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

• WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force

• Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th

• Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more

• Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Daryl Bonar page

Trying to figure out how come the Daryl Bonar page was deleted. As he is a pertinent person in Edmonton for a number of reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feetup2 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Daryl Bonar was deleted, as it was a campaign advertisement, not an article. Additionally, it should be noted that Bonar is not notable under any of our criteria (candidates are generally not notable). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What he said. If Bonar is elected, then he can have a properly sourced article written about him on Wikipedia. Until then, no go. -- role^player 11:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Martinvl/Primary destinations

Hi, why has this page been created? Are you aware that it has been created in the main userspace? I did userfy it for you to User:Martinvl/Primary destinations because the page name contains your user name, which is why I marked the page for speedy deletion, however I notice you have since changed it back. Is this supposed to be in main space? -- role^player 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roleplayer,

Thank you for your message. I think that you and I were trying to remedy the situatuion at the same time and the Wikipedia engine just got confused. I have now saved things in my area and I am happy for you to tidy up the main area. Best Regards Martinvl (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. -- role^player 14:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Broughton

Resolved

Since you appear to speak IPA, Broughton, Milton Keynes needs doing, please. The usual pronunciation is to rhyme it with 'throw', though I've heard people rhyme it with 'bough'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there an official source on the pronunciation? Something that we can reference? -- role^player 11:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Broughton (to rhyme with throw-ton) would be /ˈbroʊtən/

Broughton (to rhyme with bough-ton) would be /ˈbraʊtən/

Broughton (to rhyme with boar-ton) would be /ˈbrɔːtən/

The latter is how the Aylesbury one is pronounced. -- role^player 11:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've found what should be a reliable source: the BBC. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A19773499 . I'm content with "braw" for Broughton as it is in the middle of the various local dialects. The BBC version for Woughton is correct [in VCH, the historic names include wufton]. But there is a problem with their proposed pronunciation of Loughton which, they say, rhymes with 'low'. I've never heard anyone pronounce it like that, but always like Slough. Could it be that we have a modern change of pronunciation because of the high proportion of ex-Londoners in MK? because Loughton, Milton Keynes is pronounced nowadays exactly like Loughton, Essex: (ˈlaʊtən). But on the other hand, VCH has a 14C spelling 'Loutone' which seems to support the Essex pronunciation. Can we cite the BBC for Broughton and Woughton, but not for Loughton? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh b*gg*r. I've just found this disclaimer on the BBC site: Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. , which means that it is not an RS. Back to the drawing board. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! That was sounding quite convincing up to that point! -- role^player 13:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Any further on a definitive pronunciation? -- role^player 02:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I might have found an answer. Hanks, Patrick (2002). The Oxford Names Companion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 961-962. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) states that the common origin of Broughton is OE brōc + tūn, /ˈbrɔːtən/, with the exception of particular places in Hampshire, North Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Flintshire, which all have different origins and thus different pronunciations. It doesn't mention Broughton in Milton Keynes (or Buckinghamshire) specifically though one is left to assume that by a process of elimination it falls into the former group. Is this a strong enough reference? -- role^player 00:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or at least until a more specific source appears (one would have thought that the PC or MKweb ought to have addressed it). As you found the reference, I'll leave it to you to do the edit. Well spotted! [You could do Broughton, Aylesbury while you are at it]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- role^player 16:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WTF!!!!!! >:0

Hey why the hell did you tag my page for deletion what is wrong with you, you obviously dont know the mighty Jacod Dibdin !!!!

>:O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevencurtis (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stokenchurch Family Names

Sorry I meant to say the common family names during the 1800's. Names before this are highly subjective.

David J Johnson David J Johnson (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)