User talk:Linuxlad

This user may have left Wikipedia. Linuxlad has not edited Wikipedia since August 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

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

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

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

Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes I do think we need to go there because there's one in Buckinghamshire that flows through High Wycombe as well. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've updated it and added info to River Wye, Buckinghamshire. How's that? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering about your contribution naming Wiliam Pevril as 'Pevril of the Peak' on Peveril Castle. Does that come from Walter Scott's novel of that title? A quick look at its openening pages on Gutenberg suggests that that title was applied to a descendant, but I have not read the book. Billlion 21:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grinner": My dim recollection is that Bleaklow (and specifically Bleaklow Stones 2060') is the most Easterly 2000-footer in England. Can you confirm? Linuxlad

I don't know for sure, but it seems about right to me. We would need to get the latitudes and longitudes to be sure, but I would be 90% certain your right. Grinner 13:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Linuxlad, I'll give this a try. Can you suggest some places to find the music? Cheers, Opus33 19:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Followup: actually, there was a copy of the Tallis Scholars recording in my home which I didn't remember, so no need to post an image. Opus33

Hey, thanks for the addition to Cooper test, I didn't find anything realted to VO2max myself. Cheers --Dyss 00:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I woinder if we ought to leave a link on cross country via hills or hill running to fell running for the benefit of those who use the other terms??

Well spotted - done just for fell running. BTW If you'd like to watch over, I intend to flesh out Fell Running in a few days with a few more words and sections - maybe stick Mountain Running on its own page Eddie 11:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LinuxLad I've filled out Fell Running with a few major edits. Some of your pioneering, good work has been pushed down the page into a History section. Apologies.

Would you like to take a butchers. If you're offended, more apologies. If you're not, you might like to take a red pen to my own efforts and work it up a bit. If you're a bit of each, you might like to reorganise.

BTW Good idea with the BGR, I say. Fell running talk.

Eddie 11:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks for the BGR title.

Map software gives the distance around 61 miles and ascent around 21,000', I think. I'll let you know. Thing is, in the 80's the consensus was that we were all doing 72 miles (3 mph) and 26 - 28,000'. That's got to be worth a mention if the page get's updated with accurate measurements.

Eddie 19:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've stuck two Redirects to Bob Graham Round from The Bob Graham and The Bob Graham Round for you.

Do you/we (this is your page bros) need to do some deal with the senator Bob Graham. I was thinking a See also section at the bottom of the good senators page. Maybe a Disambiguation, Bob Graham is not that uncommon a name. But I'm not sure about the protocol with Disambiguation. Eddie 10:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - I see the blue banner. Ought to consult the manual of Style. Possibly needs a definition of what it is and isn't then a few sections. Don't know about you, but I'm cogitating - researching Dr Barbara Moore (positively not this one: Barbara Moore) who came over the Pond in the sixties and hit the news walking the length of this Isle. This was contemporary to the pheonix-like rise of the BG - a far better pursuit I'm sure she would agree. I'm a also cogitating a roaring bothy grate in the Highlands up the West Coast this w/e so won't be back for a bit.

Eddie 08:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aye. Harry had something to say about Moore. I was thinking the relevance may be of the contemporary mental set. The upsurge in distance stuff early sixties (Moore was 1960) saw the Northern clubs resurrecting BG - a hundred or so members trickled in over the next decade then another upsurge in members in the eighties at the time of the international Marathon craze (whence all these vets and so few juniors?). BTW I found Barbara Moore MD - she was a Londoner, hit the hills as well. Suspected death walking across the US. A bit eccentric - fresh air (Breathalist) and orange juice - as per last years female tragedy up at Kervaig bothy, Cape Wrath.

Eddie 11:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That look's good stuff to me - maybe work some of it in - possible WTR 60's Clayton-le-Moors and BG'? I still wonder if Moore in particular stired something up in the Lakes - presumably she walked up the A6. Unfortunately no croft, just average person's box - within commute distance (just about) south to the City of Culture.

Eddie 12:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The details/conditions of winter rounds is currently in discussion on the FRA forums There are two broad trains of thought: 1. Two weeks either side of the winter solstice 2. Any time during the months of December, January or February.

I'm inclined to the latter.

There are two issues really, one is the amount of daylight which is really what the first of the above is considering. The second is snow cover and just how white do things have to be for a round to be considered "winter"? It is perfectly possible to have warm(ish) dry ground little different to a summer round on 21st December and a metre of snow cover on 28th February. Which is a winter round? So long as those claiming such rounds are honest, I don't think it matters, it's similar to winter climbing - one year you can have thick ice on a route, the next it's more like verglas or unconsolidated snow.

--REWightman (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxlad you might like to take a look at a major edit I've just carried out Bob Graham Round --Eddie | Talk 11:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob - You wrote: IIRC The full title of the book IS in the article. But the main title is the one everyone will try to search on. I don't see what's gained by moving it off into a separate article when the two (song and book) are SO closely related.

Well, I did a search and there is a substub about the book (it was completely uncategorised or wikified). I've wikified it a little. It may be that there will be enough for a separate article, or it might simply mean making the book's article a redirect. see whay you think.

I'll accept a double-stub to make peace :-) (but is it actually literature? Is there a biography stub??)

There is, but it's for articles that are biographies, not for articles about biographies! At the moment lit-stub is probably the best, although music-stub (articles about music in general) might work just as well. Grutness|^hello?

Hi.

In a recent change to the article Cotswolds you wrote:

For ceremonial purposes these counties are returned to their pre-1974 lord-lieutenancies.

I certainly hadn't heard of this being done. I would have thought it was pretty impractical; surely given the relatively advanced age at which most lord-lieutenants are appointed, most of the holders of these titles in 1974 would have been deceased by the time the unitaries were created. -- Chris j wood 00:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about the 2C survey, but go ahead and write something if you can. I think you are correct in saying that it was done with the Cambridge Interferometer at a lower frequency than the 3C survey.

(I've run this issue past Charles a couple of times and I'm sure he's sick of it).

The article is a classic one where Mathematicians and physicists speek the same theorem in very different languages. I've approached it as a physicist (who first learned it in Natural Sciences Part 2 over 30 years ago). Either of the two 'proofs' I give (the convected dp.dq element and the 'fluids flow' proof) have adequate structure for a a physics undergrad to 'accept' I feel. But the maths guys coming from symplectic manifolds should really have a say, and it should be more than, 'for a symplectic manifold this theorem is trivially true!' It would be useful to say why it's so and what the analogous ideas are. Eg I suspect it's because the symplectic group has antisymmtric properties, just like those that Hamilton's equations produce. I found a useful page in Penrose, which I tried to 'convect' across (by 'parallel transport' :-) ??) - but then I noticed a danger - expressed too simply, this idea seems NOT to give _total_ d by dt (phase space volume) =0 . (At least one earlier maths-based contributor has fallen into this trap). The fact that it's the convective derivative two is of the essence to a physicist or chemist, trying to use it to support his stat mechanics.

Can you see how to write a symplectic space (sub) section which is comprehensible to a physics-major (with say 2 or 3 years of maths methods behind her, but no deep understanding of differential geometry). Linuxlad 12:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything at all about this stuff unfortunately. So I can't help. Good luck with that. Oleg Alexandrov 19:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pity! - you sounded just the guy Linuxlad 20:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

lots of places to start Tangential gravity

Yes, I realized that. I was going to write a list of criticisms on the talk page, but instead I decided the most constructive thing was to work on the main page, which I am doing as I write this... –Joke137 21:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I notice in the discussion on this article you mentioned Cross Country services as a lead in article to such routes. I am not particularly happy about the fact that that article took the view that ALL such services (with a small 's') had to travel through Birmingham, so have rewritten it to show otherwise. The article with the suffix (MR) - and a capital 'R' - is also misleading, in that the Virgin timetables show three such Routes and not just the one mentioned (VR 1-3). As I pointed out in the discussion in that article it was only partly Midland Railway - at each end it was Scottish railways and the GWR! If some additional appellation were needed (and I suggest that they must be, and that the other two routes are articled), then why not simply add the Virgin code? Peter Shearan 08:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comment to me, and can see your point of view. However, the point I wanted to make was the difference between the two articles. One talks about a particular route or routes, which is why it has a capital R for Route. I wanted to make the point that Cross Country services (small 's') are surely a generic term for any rail service of the kind I have now included in the second article - that is, where rail services cross the country in a direction other than what might be considered the "natural flow of traffic" - mostly radiating out from centres of population such as London et al. If one of the criteria of naming is to use pre-Grouping railways (ie MR) then the routes I have shown mostly meet that (although TransPennine might well be L&Y I suppose - ah)! Peter Shearan 17:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right that a discussion of the self-reference interpretation would be appropriate. I didn't have time to dig out the appropriate Dylan quote and outside references myself. I left the Sedgwick interpretation in because I thought it was sufficiently well-known/circulated/documented not to require explicit sourcing, but it wasn't a choice I made without second thoughts. My main goal when revamping the page was to clean out all the duelling lyrics commentary, unsourced gossip, etc, and leave a relatively straightforward, objective framework for others to elaborate on/within. Monicasdude 16:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I just noticed there was an article on Routh Hurwitz stability criterion but I created myself an article stable polynomials some days ago. I suggest that the former article should be merged into the latter (see Wikipedia:Merge). I didn't want to be the only one to think that way so I ask your advice... Cheers, Julien Tuerlinckx 14:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi.

I've been working on articles about the history of Derby's Railways and in the process I found the article on Duffield which needed tidying a little. This morning a reference to Milford Tunnel has popped up.

As I'm thinking of a history of Duffield station(but haven't worked out where I'm going to put it) do you mind if I shift your bit around with suitable links from the Duffield general history (as it were) page?

I have a note of the length of the tunnel somewhere. Chevin 3 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The tunnel is 850yards long. Just about everything on the line is now listed that British Rail hadn't got round to pulling down, including the cutting throygh Belper. Another oddity with the tunnel like others on this line is that the northern portal is fancy and the southern is plain Chevin 3 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

Yes it was a surveying tower. There are also ventilating shafts up there. In the old days, when a train went through you'd suddenly see a puff of smoke come out of them. Firestone is a place at the top of the hill where there used to be a depression where they lit the signal beacons, but I think its been filled in for a reservoir. Chevin 4 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't consult on the merging, in retrospect I agree it was a bit discourteous. With regards to the Old Labour article, it was just unnecessary-there wasn't anything there that wasn't already mentioned in the Labour Party (UK) article. The New Labour article was obviously much longer, but still most of it was repetition with the content under the heading "New Labour" on the Labour Party (UK) article. I lost a few things during merging that I though were unnecessary-the extended commentary on Private Eye's satirising on New Labour (inappropriate detail, only mentioning one publication's attitude to New Labour), the reference to "Classic Labour" (it hasn't caught on), and the reference to spin doctoring techniques, which I recognised was derived from an edition of Dispatches (on channel 4). I not sure whether its appropriate to include material from this programme, especially when it wasn't named as the source of the information and there hasn't been much coverage of it in the media. Deus Ex 3 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Hi again. Another user has started a draft for a new New Labour article-User:HighHopes/New_Labour. They are starting with the existing article, and will radically alter it shortly. They would welcome another contributions/suggestions. I hope you can restrain yourself from suggesting to to use the term "Classic Labour" instead of "Old Labour" though! :-) Deus Ex 21:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er there's only been the one footbridge in my memory...

No I'm sure there was one slightly further down exiting into what is now the VIP car park at the front. I'm pretty sure it was there after the shed was removed, though I can't see it in a photo of 1963. Perhaps it's an old bloke's memory. I wonder who I can ask? There was another to the south of the station in 1949. I realised after I'd saved the page I'd left in another error. It was the Locomotive works. The C&W was the other side of London Road down Litchurch Lane. Chevin 8 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

"Later, looking at it today I can see it's probably a new structure (I think the original structure had its decking changed some 10 plus years ago???)" Yup the orginal bridge had got unsafe, so it was reinforced. Chevin 08:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The scaffolding now up on each platform, supporting the roof, presumably is because the 1952 structure has got 'concrete cancer'" I think the new bridge is "new" rather than further reinforced. And now all the canopies have been propped up. You can hardly move on the platforms. Yes concrete cancer. To think the previous train shed had lasted a hundred years. Also I've found a photo showing the old loco works bridge. Even after Platform six there were some eight or nine tracks to cross. "North Midland Railways - Part one" by Bob Pixton. Page 15. It really brings back memories. I think its just been republished.Chevin 08:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I note you've made a redirection page from Duffield Castle to Duffield. I've just written a piece on Duffield Castle, Derbyshire. However it needs a disambiguation page for Duffield Castle, Derbyshire and Duffield Castle, Yorkshire.

Incidentally, I was on Derby Station the other day and took the time to look around. The loco works bridge is there but made of concrete and cut off each end. The 'new' passenger footbridge is new, of steel (I tapped it to make sure) Chevin 10:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might have been easier to make one, rather than delete the too-early cat and leave it looking like the Dark Peak is principally in Yorkshire :-)

Yeah, well I doubt it's too far away before one's made... but adding a non-existent template to an article is not a good way of doing things, because of the way templates work. There's a glitch in them which means that things are likely to disappear from categories if they're stubbed before the stub is created (don't ask me why, but it happens). Similarly if a stub template is made without a category and then a category is added later - it looks like the article is in the category (the category is listed on the article), but if you go to the category it's not there. So for now it just gets an England-geo-stub and a <!--note-->. 90-100 stubs is the threshold being used for the split, though, and Derbys and Essex are both around the 80 mark, so it's likely there wll be separate stubs soon. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...might try & move Flash, and the Cat & Fiddle across the county boundary...

Hope you've got a bulldozer ;) James, a.k.a. Grutness...wha? 10:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spent some time in the library, but couldn't find much. However I did find a reference to it being built in 1793 to carry lead to the Cromford Canal. If the reason for building it is right then the later date is the right one also, the canal opening in 1794. This is confirmed at http://www.wirksworth.org.uk/X203.htm and http://www.peakdistrictcottages.net/dpdopvia.html They both suggest however that it led to a smelter at Cromford,and suggest 1792. It may of course be an improvement of an earlier road, but if for stone, it would be limestone. Any rise in demand came from the increase in iron-smelting, since it wasn't much used for building, apart from mortar. The main roads out of there at the time were to the north. I'll have to do some more digging. Chevin 11:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I revert (if I can work out how)? All the accounts I have seen paint this picture of George Stephenson and Charles Binns leaving the New Inn in Derby "in a yellow post-chaise" to survey the line. Some people call it "George Stephenson's last railway." Robert was probably busy on the London and Birmingham, but probably took over as engineer, when George decided to retire to Clay Cross and develop the mineral deposits. Chevin 12:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahah. I've just found a reference in a new book I've only just started to look at. Both George and Robert were appointed engineers. In other words, George surveyed it, but they both built it. Chevin 13:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cowburn Tunnel. I've made a note on its Talk Page. Chevin 22:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki.

Hi. I noticed you've removed one of the stub notices to this article, which is fine with me. The only reason I added it was because of the categories to which the article belongs, since the text didn't make it entirely clear. Anyway, shouldn't the Derbyshire category be removed too? Mindmatrix 00:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Dove Holes Tunnel. Also should the list include disused tunnels e.g: Haddon Tunnel Chevin 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think its a reasonable length article that stands on its own. Also it tells the story of five people being killed just because the duke didn't want to see the railway from his house. Chevin 09:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for bolding Chevin and Firestone Hill in Milford Tunnel. When I was at school we used to be taken up to the actual "Firestone" the pit on the top where the fires were lit. However I believe it's been filled in by Severn-Trent for a small reservoir. I'll have to work up the energy to go up and have a look sometime. Chevin 19:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added an answer to this on my talk page. However on another matter, someone has added a link pt:Buxton on the Buxton page and I'm interested to know what it does. Chevin 09:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a famous quote, it needs to be sourced. If not, it needs replacing, as it represents an unaccapetable level of informality. I am not non-UK. Morwen - Talk 09:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've rv'd your deletion of the links on Bleaklow for the time being. I wouldn't judge them to be spam. Please make a case contra on the talk page. Bob aka Linuxlad 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Please see Mark J's talk page. Gillean666 11:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I upset you by making minor tops a redirect, but since all the tops listed there are also on List of peaks of the Peak District I don't really see the need for the duplication of a list. Grinner 12:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I agree with Ginner here. The list does exist; it's just under a different title now. May I return the list of minor tops to a redirect to the main peak district list? --Stemonitis 09:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[copied] Plese note that I have reinstated my 'Peak District Minor Tops' with Axe Edge now moved. I consider it a useful tie-in for many small named tops not yet included - for instance I would expect in due course to have a reference out to Chrome and Parkhouse Hills, and probably Alport Height.

But why can't they be included at List of peaks of the Peak District? The list format is ideal for such things. --Stemonitis 09:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stem: Chrome and Parkhouse Hills and Alport Height, and anything else can find their place at the "other peaks" section. Grinner 11:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see if I can answer my two critics here!.

Firstly, can I say that revisiting your list it does seem to be going quite well, and doesn't yet look too cluttered - but I think in due course it will. The role of a list like this goes right to the heart of what wikipedia is for.

Secondly, an analogy. I live in the old Avon area - what information about the towns cities, villages, hamlets around should be in Wiki? Well as a visiting Alien, I'd certainly expect an article on Bristol, and that's in. As someone from the South West I might (just) be interested in Thornbury, and that's in too - a bit over-long, but the town probably has its fair share of people like me, to sing its praises. Even as a Thornburian, I was surprised to find an article on Milbury Heath - but given it exists I added (some geographical info) to it.

The only reason that this level of detail can survive in wiki and it still be useful is that stuff isn't all piled in together, eg I don't find much about Thornbury in the Bristol article, and nothing at all about (robin-killing at) Milbury Heath.

Turning to the Peak District Tops/Hills - Only Bleaklow, Kinder and Black Hill really identify themselves from afar (100plus miles) as 'significant'. Fine, they've got full articles and are ranked as Hewitts or Marilyns. There's then a second division of more questionable content, with the Axe Edges and Shining Tors of this world. Some may be Marilyns, (but that depends on the capriciousness of the prominence algorithm - As I understand it, if Axe Edge were 10m higher, and so bigger than Shining Tor, it would leap significantly in 'prominence') These probably are worth listing fairly prominently, so that people from outside the area get a feel for the topography. And then there are the myriad of little peaks, often minor tops, with limited views, but notable features to those who walk the area regularly (or, <sigh>, once did). These shouldn't be muddled in with the Kinders or even the Axe Edges - just as I don't want everything for 30 miles around in the Bristol article.

Sensible division is the basis of effective classification. I rest my case :-) Bob aka Linuxlad 12:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point here, though, is that we can do the division on one page, with the minor tops simply as a list at the end of the List of peaks of the Peak District. The minor tops page is simply replication. Grinner 14:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grinner and I seem to be of one mind here. --Stemonitis 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At present it's a straight rep, but it well might not remain so, especially if its widened to say Belper area (the Chevin) etc....watch this space :-) Bob

But why not put these extra peaks onto the main page (List of peaks of the Peak District)? Grinner 10:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because their importance is largely local (like Milbury Heath), and it's different classes of user who will seek them out (They do, however, make a spread of coverage across the district, which you'll never get just listing Marilyns) Bob

Nobody is saying we should just list Marilyns; there are plenty of other peaks listed at List of peaks of the Peak District. I utterly fail to see why (eg) Milbury Heath can't be listed there too - it's not as if space is an issue. Grinner 10:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any compelling reason not to, I have restored the redirect from Minor Tops of the Peak District to List of peaks of the Peak District. Nothing links to it, and it contains no information not held elsewhere. I would suggest we co-operate on making the List of peaks of the Peak District as comprehensive and useful as possible. --Stemonitis 11:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps This is turning into 'a dialogue of the deaf'.

I intend to add more material in the minor tops article - please be patient.It is NOT interfering with anything you're doing as far as I can see. (It's an article NOT a category).

I've made it clear why I disagree with putting everything into the 'big' classification. Please try to respect that judgement even if you can't fully understand it. You can fillet from the article (if you wish), if you want to overcrowd that classification. Change reverted (with additions). Linuxlad 12:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Incidentallly your reference to Milbury Heath (a hamlet in the former Avon area) suggests you haven't read my original comment properly - please now do so![reply]

Apologies for the missreading of Milbury Heath. I was replying to your second posing, without re-reading the first. To use the Avon example (but to move to a county that still exists), if we look at Somerset we find that List_of_places_in_Somerset has them all, Taunton, Weston super Mare, down to tiny hamlets with no wiki article. Thus all peaks in the Peak District can be listed on at, hey, List of peaks of the Peak District. I'll add Alport Heights to the main list, since that is where is should be listed. Grinner 13:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read (and re-read) your comments, Linuxlad, and I still can't agree with them. No, the Peak District article shouldn't be cluttered with hundreds of fairly insignificant tops, but then, that's not what we're suggesting. They would, instead, be listed at List of peaks of the Peak District which, in its current state, lists the more significant summits (measured by whatever means) first, and then moves on to the more minor peaks. It is ridiculous to suggest that that list would become over-cluttered by smaller peaks, because otherwise it would be a very short list indeed. Unless and until the list of Peak District peaks grows unwieldy (32kB is usually considered the length limit for a good article), they can and should all go together in one place. We appreciate your work in noting the minor peaks, we really do, but they belong at List of peaks of the Peak District. I think most wikipedians would support us two on this issue. --Stemonitis 13:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had commented on the fission product page, I have altered it to make it more easy to read. I am a chemist who has some radiochemical training but little experience on how to do the markup langauge for Wikipedia, do you want to add to the page from the point of view of a physics person ? When I found the page it was in a poor and small state, I added to it writing mainly about fission products from power reactors do you want to add anything which is very different to the page ?Cadmium 14:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your discussion here, and have replied. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your comments. Like you I agree I would hardly call David Drew one of Labour's regular rebels, indeed he wasnt even on my radar as a rebel, but I included the text as it was part of the original text I was amending; I have since checked and he is quite rebellious although, as you say, not on the Corbyn, Flynn scale. The question of his education, I can honestly say I am not sure. I just did a search on the name of the school and the bulk of the results came out with Kingswood. However, I have to say I do not know. I am a Berkshire born Londoner and have no Gloucestershire local knowledge. I know Drew was born in South Gloucestershire but have no more 'fine tuning' than that. Rob Streatham 15:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and interest - I've removed the hyperbole as suggested and also responded to your comments on the article discussion.

Cheers BaseTurnComplete 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• the fact is that Labour has not implemented any 'socialist' reforms since 1970s

• the majority of Labour Party does not represent even classical 'social democratic' ideology, but something to the right of it, i.e 'Third Way'

• Blair's policies are centrist and have certainly nothing to do with 'socialism'

• As I've already tried to explain, the charter might contain the anachronistic notion of socialism, but
• we should take into acount the actual political position confirmed in electoral manifestos which do not include the word 'socialism'

• to label Labour as socialist is totally misguiding, as it leads to suggest that British Labour belongs to a group of parties consisting of German Die Linke, Swedish Left Party, Finnish Left Alliance and other ex-communist groups.

In my opinion, by calling Labour a 'dem socialist' party you don't follow the NPOV. If you are a member of a left leaning faction of Labour Party (you claim you support the line of former Independent Labour Party), it does not conclude that the majority of the party would label themselves primarily as 'socialists'. Constanz 16:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good to me. It was a pleasure working with you. Thank you for your patience. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're having a bit of a discussion going on with this. Would welcome your views Chevin 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very timely- I was only standing on platform 3 7 hours ago :-) Linuxlad

I've destubbed the ones that were approaching Featured Article length. Still 118 of the little bleeders, though, if you're feeling busy. Kanthoney 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've credited the Abraham's picture of Napes Needle as PD. Do you believe all the Abraham's climbing photos are in the public domain? - I'd like to reproduce the Abraham's one of O G Jones, which must be over 100 years old - but George Abraham only died in 1965 and copyright runs for 70 years from last creator's death in UK law, I read... Linuxlad 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken before 1923, so it's automatically in the public domain in the US (see Public domain#Expiration). Gdr 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm Just Curious What you mean when you say that a BA is "Indeed Not a Degree at All". Because although it is not a very Important Academic Degree it is A Degree. Michael Drew 00:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(For the avoidance of doubt, it's the Oxbridge _MA_ I was casting aspersions on!). Linuxlad 15:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(see Jakken's talk for original Linuxlad comment)

I thought i could add the lyrics because it is a page about the song.(And it would be hard for a computer challenged person to find the lyrics).

jakken

p.s. how did you make your name link to this page?

I noticed you mentioned merging film developing into photographic developer. I tagged both articles {{merge}} as described on WP:MERGE. --Christopherlin 07:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have contributed to the Rosalind Franklin article in the past. It has recently had a rewrite and been had a request for peer review. Your comments would be appreciated. Alun 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - thanx Ballista 21:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I'm also just trying to improve things. I had the same issue: Standard atmosphere used to redirect to Atmospheric pressure which was not really appropriate. I could not find any information on the "Standard Atmosphere" models (either ISA, US, or otherwise). IMHO the atmospheric models/pressures pages (of which there are quite a few) are often contradictory and confusing. I've made a first pass at trying to sort them out a bit, but would appreciate any help/insight/opinions you or anyone else has to offer. BTW, the NRLMSISE-00 model is actually very popular, but with atmospheric physicists (I think) rather than aerospace engineers -- hence why I see some value to the Atmospheric models overview page. Likewise "Jacchia" has its own solid user base, despite being somewhat old. Thanks for your help yesterday! MFago 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - I don't know enough about this topic to answer your query, and if you want to rever me, that's fine, but I thought that the list is currently of broader areas which contain some karst scenery (e.g. Herzegovina is listed), and that White Peak was a little more specific than simply the Peak District. Warofdreams talk 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problems with the Oxford article stating that the city is known as the "City of Dreaming Spires", what I was objecting to was the Cotswolds article using it as an editorial comment. It's a classic example of the Use-mention distinction. Fair enough, we could say "the Cotswolds stretch from Oxford (known as the 'City of Dreaming Spires') to Stroud", but I don't think it's relevant in the context of this geographical description. A context in which it might be relevant is "Oxfordshire is well-known for its ecclesiastical architecture: Oxford is known as the 'City of Dreaming Spires'". Hope that explains my motives, and sorry if I was a bit abrupt in my edit summary! -- Blisco 09:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship... is open to any person over the age of eighteen whose application is acceptable to the Society. In round numbers, half the Fellowship consists of PhD-level professional scientists (including more than 90 per cent of UK Professors of Astronomy); around a quarter are postgraduate researchers or retired scientists; and the remainder are amateur scientists and undergraduate students. [1]

Unlike other similar organisations, there's only one class of membership, which they call a fellow. By contrast, the IoP for example has student members, associate members, members and fellows.

I think it makes no difference anyway. We don't normally list all postnominals such as degrees and professional membership. I don't think FInstP should be included in articles, and not even CEng. FRS is something quite special, but I'd draw the line below that. JRawle (Talk) 14:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Striptease. I'm sure if I looked there would be loads of stuff in there that need sourcing more urgently than the bits I tagged. I suppose it was rather foolish, since I really don't know much about the topic. Kasreyn 09:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've been keeping an eye on Climbing recently, but it's badly in need of some attention, especially from a British perspective. Would you be interested in working on the article, as you seem to have an interest in the subject? The talk page shows the current state of play - sorry about all the wrangling there. Cheers, Blisco 11:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll monitor it for a bit, but don't think my blood-pressure would take getting too involved at present :-) Bob

No worries, I sympathise entirely ;-). Blisco 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, I thought that LOFT was a bit of a small thing on its own and that it should go together with PHEBUS. So that is why I moved it to the page on fuel and reactor accidents. Do you have any more details about the LOFT studies, I could not see much detail in the article on LOFT.Cadmium 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically it was pretty important I think (and cost the US a pretty penny!), though I dimly recollect that PHEBUS produced the better data. LOFT changed direction several times - there were quite a few small-break tests, some ATWS (I think) and finally 2 or 3 fission product transport tests. There is a big list somewhere on the web, probably at the INEL site? Bob aka Linuxlad 08:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a list of links to documents about LOFT. You might want to read them and write more content about LOFT.Cadmium

You're doing great work here - but you've got to be rather careful, because you're only picking up a few percent of the work in some of these areas. Everyone from Sandia to JRC-Ispra was doing FCI (corium-water interactions), up to 1995; similarly a lot of other corium concrete stuff was done, eg by Sandia using electrically heated melts on a range of concrete types. Some quite adequate computer models were made for ablation rates etc IIRC. Bob

Please could you add some more content on the subject of these tests which I have not seen, I have never tried to suggest that the work which I wrote about is the sum total of the work on the field. It is just examples from the experiments which I have read about, it will make the work better if you add some more content based on the sources of information which you know. I think it is better that the reader sees a article written only using the results of a few studies than having no article to read.Cadmium

I'll cast about, but I've been out of this area for 15-odd years. As a start, try searching on "Theofanous FCI" - Theo wrote a review in 1993 (Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.), and was still going strong in 1999 - this might have pointers to the experimental fci stuff. "csni fci" gets you (inter alia) a serg review and a reference to the Ispra work (Hohman et al) using FARO

"Sandia corium concrete" gets you a reference to the TURC tests as well as some KfK (Karlsruhe) work. "CSNI corium concrete" contains a review c 2000.

Sorry to throw it back at you, but I think you've probably got more easy access to some of this stuff now. Shout, if not. If we can confirm that nothing earth-shattering has happened these last ten years, then I'd be happy to help summarise, but otherwise, I'd be in danger of leading you down the garden Bob

Sorry you didn't feel able to support this move, which was totally uncontentious - I may well NOT have followed the procedure properly, but the intended move was adequately flagged up on the main list and on the talk page, so that there could have been debate if any were needed. Please reconsider (I'm glad I'm not an admin :-))Linuxlad 10:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, I'm not an admin either so I can't actually perform the move; I can only close move requests that don't end in a move or that are malformed. I'll go contact an admin that is online right now to perform the move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The move has been completed. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As found true especially on sensitive topics in Wikipedia there are two sides to every issue. It would be well to conduct discussions on the Circulation Parameter and other material in Batchelor's text off-line so as not to infringe on the policies of this website. The views I hold are coincident with the references on the Lift Force page but have a strictness and adherence to detail about them that encourages the pursuit of original work. Just the same it is not comfortable to spend time on something by oneself. My website has my contact information on it - IntegEner-W Anthony Chessick 21:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct comments I wish to make on pages 404 through 407 on the paragraph titled "The force on a body in translational motion" of Batchelor are these:

- This is evidently the most usual source for the theory of the Lift Force due to "circulation". Versions of it are to be seen in other textbooks, including those written by Sears and Munk. Teachers the world over seem to be familiar with it.

- The treatment is based on concepts such as irrotional and solenoidal flow using a highly generalized (complex) form of the Bernoulli equation. Kelvin's circulation theorem is mentioned and applied.

- In maintaining a high degree of generality the "body" shown in the figure, which is intended to represent a wing, can only be described as of a rock-like shape, that is, not at all appearing to be a wing profile.

- The contribution of the acceleration term is neglected but he seems to be in a hurry to restore it in a later section for better generality. Not only is the wing moving at a fixed rate but the analysis is intended to cover the case of it accelerating as well.

- The d'Alembert paradox comes in for some treatment. In an aside it is mentioned that this analysis also has the byproduct of proving this paradox (inviscid fluids have no drag) in a more general sense.

- Integrations are taken over not only the "fixed surface A that coincides instantaneously with the body surface" but also over a "surface S in the fluid which encloses the body instantaneously" in order to obtain a volume V bounded by A and S. Some of the reasoning for why this is done is passed by in a way that suggests he is thinking to himself with his own private speculations and ideas.

- He finally arrives at the formula listed as 6.4.26 and then says "This remarkable side-force or 'lift' on the body, which is the foundation of the theory of the lifting action of aeroplane wings, arises from the combined effect of the forward motion of the body and the circulation round it, and is independent of the size, shape and orientation of the body."

- Sears does not provide much help. He starts with the Magnus Effect and then says "the magnitude of the lifting force F can be shown to be", jumping to the formula equivalent of 6.4.26 without a proof. He then goes on to say that a similar "circulation can be set up around a nonrotating object in a stream of moving fluid if properly shaped" with no elaboration. To be fair, he does add an example in fine print of a wing using the Bernoulli Equation wherein the above formula is obtained, the problem here being just how much differential of flow velocities on the two sides of the wing is needed to support a 500 ton aircraft and how can such an efficient wing be shaped to be even more efficient.

This is the Lift Force as provided from early work by George K. Batchelor in his popular textbook. Anthony Chessick 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for using {{worldmusic-song-stub}} here was that I felt it was the best fit from all the song-stubs available, but I've changed it now to the more general {{song-stub}}. --Bruce1ee 10:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Usr page. CSD A7: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead. (See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion).. A is short for Article. MECU≈talk 21:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:LLLL.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed (I Hope) - the lady has been GPL'd. Bob aka Linuxlad 12:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why you reverted my redirection of this article. All the information in the article appears in the List of peaks of the Peak District, which is exactly where it should be. Warofdreams talk 18:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User CovenantD has been bothering other editors the same way you claimed in his talk page.

I wrote him this: From my understanding you were blocked for 6 hours because of your 3RR violations in Clock King, please use the time to think about your actions. You've been a very inconsiderate user. the purpose of wikipedia is to make well sourced informative articles, not un sourced uninformative articles that don't ilustrate the content. If you don't like the topic, go to an article about a topic you like and provide research, tables, infoboxes and images according to guideline. Thank you--The Judge 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever need me to rv his rv's or an intervention write me a comment. --The Judge 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it far from subject. It is more related to malware. --Haham hanuka 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cleveland Way, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.aboutbritain.com/articles/cleveland-way-national-trail.asp, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Cleveland Way. Then you should do one of the following:

*Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Cleveland Way where we can find that note; or

*Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cleveland Way.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - mistaken identity. Cleveland Way is still up for deletion. I have tried to save your initial stub at Talk:Cleveland Way/Temp, as it was not your material that was at fault. According to the page history, an anonymous IP is responsible for the questionable material. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linuxlad, I thought your comments as a whole added good detail but gave a simplistic impression that people would only wear their rings (or not) out of a sense that marriage, especially commitment to sexual fidelity, did not end on death. There are lots of reasons people can continue to wear their rings, some of them purely practical. For instance, continuing to wear a ring could be because of a desire not to change the way they are viewed by sections of society, or to provide themselves with more of a shield against questions; because of peer and family pressure; because they dislike the different feel of a newly ringless finger. And others might still consider themselves married, but not wear their ring. I don't believe the article should make assumptions about or narrowly define why people would choose a particular practice. I wondered about adding some complexity (putting in other reasons and pointing out that individual decisions probably involve a mix of conflicting reasons) instead of deleting. But it seems unreasonable emphasis on an article that is supposed to be focused on wedding rings rather than widowhood/death of a spouse. --Siobhan Hansa 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I in no way mean to dismiss those feelings as mere tradition, and my examples above were not intended to equate the loss of a spouse to the feeling of a newly ringless finger. I simply wanted to point out that there is a great deal of complexity in the way people respond to the death of a spouse, and an article on wedding rings is not the appropriate place to get into that in depth. I had hoped my edits also moved away from the implication that people wore (or not) a ring simply because of tradition. If not, it needs re-wording again. Perhaps we should take this to the article talk page and get other input? --Siobhan Hansa 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - two further pages dedicated to 'LLLL' Linuxlad 16:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You threw me a bit adding that comment then rv'ing it! I got an alert about a message then couldn't find it. I've added a ref to the book from which I got the figures. The conditions of the workers was the subject of the so-called "Woodhead Controversy" which is outlined in the book, but I couldn't think of a way of precising (if there is such a word) it for the Wikipedia article. Chevin 09:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I just wasnt sure of the meaning. Where in Derbyshire are you from? JFBurton 11:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding content to this stub, but please cite your sources and try to find cites for the existig content as well.Dhaluza 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to check with the author if you will use their original content, and in this case you need to get them to release it for free re-use. A standard (non-original) derivation should not be a problem. If you used two or more (independent) sources to produce a derivative work, that is even better. But if you did not do the derivation yourself, you must cite your sources, otherwise that is plagiarism. If you did do it yourself, that is original research and not suitable for WP. Dhaluza 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linuxlad, the article lacks contexts. Even it did not qualify as stub. So I deleted the page. If you want to add texts to the article such that it looks like an encyclopediac article, then I could resore the article. I would like to say, if you consider creating an article then please add sufficient information to the article. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something I dont like about that bit. I think that the article should be improved by having some more optimistic things put into it instead. And what do those letters stand for that you said about Kettleshulme? JFBurton 12:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so where you living at now then? JFBurton 13:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxLad, Im thinking of starting up a WikiProject about villages in Derbyshire. Would you be interested? JFBurton 13:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been giving the recent confrontation between us some thought over the last few days, and I have concluded that you clearly do not understand the circumstances in which your article was tagged for lack of sources. I shall therefore do you the courtesy of explaining the situation. As you surely know, Wikipedia gets hundreds of new articles every day. While many of these are serious attempts at building an encyclopedia, there are many which are about non-notable subjects, are intended to disparage their subject, are blatant advertisements, or are simply nonsense. These articles are best caught early through the Special:Newpages function, so that they may be nominated for a speedy deletion. In addition there are many new articles which lack citations. The customary procedure for dealing with these articles is to apply a references-needed template, with the hope that the user who has forgotten to add the appropriate references will return to the page, and realize that he/she needs to add them. If these templates were not used, then many articles would continue to go without references simply because the author is not aware of his/her error. Now the ideal procedure would be to create a list of articles which lack references, and periodically check back on the articles on the list; but compiling this list and checking the articles would take up precious time, which might allow more bad articles to slip through the net undeleted. Too many dubious articles slip through as it is, and eating up time with lists would simply exacerbate the problem. If in future you do not wish to have such a confrontation as has occurred repeated, then I would advise you to observe the following practices: a) always ensure that references have been organized before you create the article (this is what I meant when I asked why you did not place references in at the beginning, not at the top of the article as you appear to have misunderstood), b) if such a template is added to one of your articles, do not take it personally. These templates are intended not to disparage the article or its author, but only to point out a problem that needs to be addressed, whether within the next five seconds, five days, or five years. Other than that, best of wishes, and happy editing here at Wikipedia. Galanskov 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the airfoil article. As you can see, it has been tagged for lack of references, so please reference your edits, and add any additional references you can. Dhaluza 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it's correct, but a specific citation for something like an equation is best. Use the {{cite web}} template inside <ref></ref> with {{reflist}} at the bottom to set this up. Let me know if you need more help with this. Dhaluza 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the science is not copyright, but the purpose of the cite is WP:V. If I want to check your equation, where should I look? Dhaluza 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "looked OK"; no explanation was given, not even an edit summary, and no source was give. If you mean that you personally know that the text is correct, I suppose that that's OK, though it's not really what's meant by the need for verifiable sources (WP:CITE). If you mean only that it doesn't look obviously false — that surely can't be grounds for replacing it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, for better or for worse, Wikipedia doesn't allow "I live there and I know", "I'm an expert on this matter", etc., to take the place of citations.

I've asked Aidan Croft (talk · contribs) to give edit summaries and citations, and he deleted my comments without response. Another editor has reverted his blanking of his Talk page (which is not only ill mannered but disapproved of in Wikipedia guidelines), and he's tried to blank it again with the edit summary "Go away please!"). He seems to have no idea how Wikipedia works or how to interact with other editors. If you have any influence with him, I'd be grateful if you could use it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding that extra sentence - the arrangement of railway lines does need a lot of description indeed!

Aidan Croft 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I never received a request to add citations although I did receive a request to add edit summaries which I have duly noted. As a result I feel I do not need to leave a response!

Aidan Croft 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag after a new piece of information was added (again unexplained and unsourced). If what's in the article is significant/notable, there's surely some printed or on-line source for it? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any form of auto blanking. As the chap describes above I manually blank the page for appearance purposes - once conversations are no longer important or not needed I remove them. I presume this will be the ideal chance for the chap above to "have a go".

Many regards,

Aidan Croft 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Rod ^talk 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied here. Thanks, Joe D (t) 10:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know the band, and I totally agree that the "Gallows" page should definitely either be a disambiguation page or link to the Gallows (Execution) article. However, the comment atop the article does not at all belong there, but on the talk page at best. You could also just move the pages yourself (if possible, maybe you'd need an administrator to do it) instead of listing what should be done. Anyway, if you need help move the articles/creating a disambig page, I'll gladly help, but the comment cannot stay in the Gallows article. --HarryCane 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the Gallows article was just copy/paste moved yesterday. I just looked into the edit history, restored the last good version and made the other a redirect. --HarryCane 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you know more about the physics of water boiling when it is in contact with a hot surface than I do . I havce just added some details of a french study of the heat transfer from cladding to water. Please could you have a look at it and maybe improve it.Cadmium

Hi again, I think that I have worked out what has gone wrong here. The markup lanaguge was changed recently, now after you use something such as ^superscrpt you must type </command> to turn the command off again, the / is required. Until you asked me in an e-mail I left the housekeeping of your talk page alone as I did not want to trepass on your talk page (you might have been using the scrore through as some way of marking old and dead topics).Cadmium

I've undone your reversion to the text. Please see Talk:Latent image for the reasoning. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your last change here. 1) 2 to 4 is a 'few' in my book; 5 or more is quite adequately covered by 'several'. 2) It is confusing to give the impression that use of the 'chair' _ended_ in 1976, when the penalty remained on the statute book for many years more - the situation is not like the USA cases pre and post Furman.Linuxlad 09:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The use of the chair did end in 1976, since although the statute remained on the books past then, the death penalty ended later, so 1976 turned out to have been the last use. That's true of the last use for any execution method, since there's not a one anyplace that isn't in theory capable of being brought back. These things are always understood as "as of this date the last use was..."

Second, I think it's silly to use a phrase that is vague and liable to misinterpretation, when for the same space (or less) as you use for "several" decades, you can be more nearly exact, and say "five." You can even use the exact dates for the same space (1923-76) and give MORE information. So what in the world possesses you to think that your use of "several" is in any way better? You can argue about what "several" means to you, and I can argue about what it means to me, and THAT is a silly argument, given that it's not a well-defined word in English, and we're not stuck with this word, except as you demand it (in which case I think we need the opinions of some other editors). For the record, my online dictionary (try it on the web) actually says "several" is "more than 2 or 3, but not many." Well, how many is "many"?? In English, the term is often tied to the badness or goodness of a thing. Five birthdays or birthday presents isn't many. But five assailants at your mugging, or getting shot five times during the process, would be many. If the Phillipines electrocuted people for 5 decades, I would have called that many. If they'd merely had their political freedom for that many decades, I wouldn't. See how it works? In any case, it's a silly thing to debate, so why don't you change it to something simple and direct and not capable of being misunderstood? SBHarris 21:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soory for delay ... I hope you remembered your camera. I delayed as I hoped to get a picture rather than promise to get a picture. As it is I didn't manage it. I have added another pic. Pleased to see someone reads this stuff Victuallers 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

The point of notionally coupling a large number of copies together is to get an easy model of a heat bath and a straightforward transition from the stats for a microcanonical ensemble. It may be 'grossly wrong' but it's the way (IIRC, and I did check last time I had to justify it) I was taught it at Part 2!

No problem at all with coupling a large number of copies together (either notionally, or in reality) to get an easy model of a heat bath. My problem is with calling such an assemblage (whether notional or real) an ensemble. It isn't, at least not in the terms Gibbs introduced the word, and authoritative texts use it (eg Tolman 1938).

A canonical ensemble represents alternate possibilities for the same system. It makes no sense to talk about coupling different members of the ensemble together, because they exist in different universes. Equally, there doesn't need to be any more than a single system, before one can talk about an ensemble of its possible states.

So the ensemble is a different thing from the assemblage of systems discussed above. The crucial step, then, is the assertion that the distribution over states for the ensemble is the same as the equilibrium distribution of states found over the assemblage. This may or may not actually be so trivial.

But we don't actually need it, to define the ensemble distribution. There are easier ways to get to the result that 1/kT = d(ln g)/dE where g is the multiplicity of states in the heat-bath, and then to use p proprtional to g to infer the Boltzmann distribution. Jheald 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victuallers 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem...probably not the best reference but it at least points in the right direction. Spent many happy? hours on or is that in, the Kinder and Bleaklow bogs when I lived in Manchester. If you havn't read Barrys bopok, well worth the read, will have you rolling round in laughter especially if you know or have done the Pennine Way. Regards Phil Geotek 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says ... well the national trust says Ilam Park Ilam, Ashbourne, Derbyshire DE6 2AZ Telephone: 01335 350503 at their site at http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-ilampark/

So i guess the post office agrees.

Now maybe no one has told the ordnance survey who may feel they have a vote on this.

So if you say the map says staffs then I guess you are right but many including the people who maintain it think its in Derbyshire ... it was on the Derbyshire list of interesting places....

Conclusion ... needs to be recorded as in staffs although many including nat trust think it is derbyshire. Do you want to reset of should I? Victuallers 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and did you get a pic of stenson Victuallers 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Ilam and pay my council tax to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.65.10 (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page. Mak (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Enid J. Wilson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Canadian Paul 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a nasty piece of work ... him I mean... thx for the article. Keep bumping into you! Victuallers 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you meant by your comments left on my talk page. Kingswood, South Gloucestershire and Kingswood, Gloucestershire were re-disamibuated using standard formatting when I applied WP:UKCITIES and added their own infobox. Jza84 10:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure where your objections are. Both articles use a standard disambiguation link at the top of the article; it's absolutely unacceptable to have a line in the article linking to a discussion on the talk page as a means to disambiguate, per any of Wikipedia's (or indeed any encyclopedia's) style guides.

That said, there are actually several tactics we could employ here to avoid confusion. Firstly the infobox (which you intially reverted out mind) acts as a quick reference card highlighting key statistics and reference frames about each settlement (including now a localised map). Secondly, a disambiguation link at the top of each article using the standard "distinguish" template. Thirdly, an explanation in the prose that there is a simillar Kingswood. Forthly, a "hidden" message left for editors that only appears once the article is engaged to be editted. Fifthly, disambiguate Kingswood, Gloucestershire to Kingswood, Stroud inline with national consistency.

Regarding timestamping - I presume you mean a way in which Kingswood, South Gloucestershire has an explaination that it was one within the historic and/or administrative county of Gloucestershire? This could be explained breifly within the lead, but per WP:UKCITIES, should be explained under a "Governance" section, perhaps with material from www.visionofbritain.org.uk.

I trust that answers your concerns regarding the avoidance of confusion about each settlement? Jza84 21:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingswood Stroud is a barmy idea,Kingswood Wotton might just about get by - the problem arises apparently from your wedding to the ceremonial counties (a foolish and inappropriate policy for present Glos./South Glos)... Let's take this to the 'Tale of two Kingswoods talk, to avoid repetition - (I want some time on something more productive - even if it's only 'washing the pots') Bob aka Linuxlad 21:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of debate about school articles with some people insisting that all schools are notable and should have an article and others insisting that all schools (or at least those at secondary level) should have an article. I've stuck a notability tag on the school's page. I'd be inclined to give them a month or so to improve. I'm hoping that the new Gloucestershire template might shame them into some action. Feel free to nominate the school for deletion if you want. I'm not sure of the process. Dahliarose 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this school would best be merged if the article can't be expanded. There is an official schools project merge tag which I've now added to the page. As there is no guideline on the notability of schools they now have to satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG. The other alternative is a PROD nomination. A few of these have gone through recently. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools. Feel free to add tags to other non-notable schools if you find them. For notable schools which don't currently exist the only answer is to write an article! Dahliarose 14:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linux Lad, First, I ste them as Mid because a) all derbys towns are supposed to be mid, and b) because in my opinion the CHPR is quite a significant railway. Second, if you don't like my rating, be bold and change it! I don't mind - it will benefit the project LOADS more!!! Thanks! Bluegoblin7 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. This is our first contact, so I wasn't sure! In future though, feel free to change any of my ratings: It will come up on my watch list, and then if I don't like it I can put a message and we can discuss!

Keep on contributing!

Bluegoblin7 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Derbyshire Newsletter Issue I - October 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here

Editor's Message Hello, and welcome to this first issue! Please keep on contributing here. and keep your comments coming in. If you wish to continue to receive this, then add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Derbyshire/Newsletter, otherwise you will not receive it after this issue! Thanks! Bluegoblin7 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Member news The project currently has 10 members. However, it could increase by YOU telling others about the Project!

This Month's Achievements! We have NO unassessed articles We have a live portal We have lots of project pages There are over 200 tagged articles

Monthly Challenges Create a welcome message for new and prospective members. The Portal is now live, so please keep nominating and voting for the relevant articles! Try to invite more members to this project. As much as a streamlined team is good, the more editors we have the broader the range we can cover. Nominate for next month's collaboration Created by Bluegoblin7

Hi Linuxlad! Here is this month's newsletter! To continue recieveing it, follow the link within and add your name! Bluegoblin7 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I changed hamlet to village on the basis that Twyford has its own church. Traditionally in the UK, a hamlet means a settlement that doesn't have a church (i.e. it is part of another parish), and a village means a settlement that has its own church. This would broadly mean that a hamlet was smaller than a village, but this is not always the case these days. See the Wikipedia article on hamlet.

As far as Sheet Stores Junction goes, this is the official railway name for the junction at the end of the Castle Donnington loop line - it joins the Midland Main Line between Trent North Junction and Long Eaton station. See Wikipedia article on Trent railway station. Regards. -- MightyWarrior 10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Derbyshire WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Derbyshire Newsletter Issue II - November 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Editor's Message Hello, and welcome to this month's newsletter.! Please keep on contributing here, and keep your comments coming in. If you wish to continue to recieve this in future, then add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Derbyshire/Newsletter, otherwise you will not recieve it after this issue! (Those who got this in Issue I I apologise, but only one person said they still wished to receive it! If you want either just a link, or just the banner, then please leave your name on the main page also. I have changed the format this month aswell so that it is collapsible! Thanks! Bluegoblin7 10:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Member news The project currently has 11 members. However, it could increase by YOU telling others about the Project! Special Thanks must go this month to users Victuallers and User:Xn4, for their sterling work within the project. Victuallers has led the way in getting several Derbyshire facts on the main page, and Xn4 has led the way in nominations for the selected image and article on the Portal. THANKS GUYS! This Month's Achievements! Several articles have gone for some of the higher ratings. Unfortunately, none succeeded, but please continue to improve them! Monthly Challenges Create a welcome message for new and prospective members. The Portal is now live, so please keep nominating and voting for the relevant articles! Try to invite more members to this project. As much as a streamlined team is good, the more editors we have the broader the range we can cover. Nominate for next month's collaboration Contribute to this month's collaboration Created by Bluegoblin7

Bluegoblin7 13:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 90.203.45.244 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Yeah, it's usually bad form to clean talk pages, but I tried only to get rid of stuff that didn't have much discussion merit (aka "CROSS COUNTRY RULES/SUX" that kind of stuff). If you want to put it back, that's cool--I don't go to the article very often, and just stumbled upon it and saw that it was kind of sloppy in general :) Regards, Rahzel (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linuxlad. I am impressed by much of your work and I am writing to you to ask for your assistance. I see some major problems with Static pressure so I have used the discussion page to initiate a debate. I would appreciate it if you would peruse the discussion page and add your thoughts. Regards Dolphin51 10:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying; working on it now - I do agree it is half baked. PeterIto (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years ago you noted on the CHPR talk page, we appear to have articles claiming both Josiah Jessop and William Moorsom as the engineers to the line. I've now found a reference which I've added to Lickey Incline and will amend the CHPR page shortly Chevin (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the line from Buxton to the CHPR was extended by the LNWR to Ashbourne then to Rocester (I think) where it joined the Knotty. There were regular trains into Derby where the LNWR had a small workshop/office. The line had through trains from Buxton to London. There are one or two books on the line now in print. Among them "Lost Railways of Derbyshire" by Geoffrey Kingscott. Chevin (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: would the incline from Wirksworth be the Steeple Grange Light Railway?Chevin (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note on Talk:Cromford and High Peak Railway#Proper Route Map? Chevin (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to debate about the note you just added. Your phrase sounds good and I agree for it to stay there. I removed the earlier phrase because it doesn’t look like a complete sentence although what it says it true. - Jay (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Eb minor chord. --Al Pereira(talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can seem a not-minor chord because of Puccini's instrumentation: the most part of the instruments play Eb and very few of them play the 3rd and the 5th of the chord. In other words, it doesn't sound like a major chord but it can sound a bit like an unison. --Al Pereira(talk) 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Thomas Walker (Heartbeat 1994), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on the article talk page, duly noted, and I've popped a prod note on the IP talk page. Kind regards.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment about my article. Nice to have some feedback. There's a bit to do yet but I've been trying to work up a map showing the MR lines into Manchester from the south and their relationship with the LNWR and the SA&MR Chevin (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who is an administrator for Henry Bessemer but the page has been a target for vandalism for several months now. Is there a way it can be locked temporarily? Chevin (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your objection and I am not a very spiffy Wiki editor. I just saw that the item on Prandtl omitted the book by Ewald, Pöschl and Prandtl, a classic which I studied in 1954 in a mechanics course. So I tried to put in a credit. If you have a better way to credit Prandtl with the book - welcome. I would have no reason to "get the ref. count up" and hardly get the drift of what you mean - Ewald's count or Prandtl's - and why on earth would anyone care how many references existed to either? Carrionluggage (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry but I am lost. So I am also losing interest. Obviously I goofed in some way in trying to get that classic book in there on Prandtl's page, but I do not think I will ever figure out what you are talking about; my familiarity with Wiki affairs is below threshold for me to see the problem you perceive with too many links or lack of reciprocal linking. Obviously, these guys worked together, but I often see one-way cross-links. It all started when I looked up "Prandtl number", and saw that his book was not referenced. I do not think there is an "Ewald number" or a "Pöschl number." Please feel free to revert my change or do whatever you deem best. Thanks Carrionluggage (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Oops - I think I see what you do not think is good practice - so I removed the link to Ewald. Hope all is copasetic now. Carrionluggage (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LLLL.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Tilman Piesk (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for bothering you with LLLL. The picture might be important for you ... well. But I don´t see, why the file name should be. I think the best you can do is again uploading the file as LinuxladsLovelyLass.jpg or something, and no one should care. Greetings, Tilman Piesk (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article SQEP, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of SQEP. BlueValour (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's a unitary authority, which means it has as a local government unit the functions of both a county and a district. But that doesn't make it a county. There are some blurred distinctions in this general area: Bristol, for instance, has long been claimed as both a city and a county (though the council has always been called "Bristol City Council"). But I reckon this doesn't fall into that blurred area. Anyway, if you feel strongly, please feel free to revert me. Johnlp (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, now I'm confused! Is your breakaway article going to be about Hartington to Ashbourne, Hartington to Ilam, Milldale to Ilam or what. Dovedale (to a simple person who was born and bred in Derby) means any of these. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you advise? You seem to have more experience in this area than me. May I say that it's not my article, it's an article on Wikipedia which I am currently editing. To give you the background. I use Wikipedia as a reference source. A lot of my edits tend to be about what I am currently interested in. I am going to be visiting the Peak District. In the course of my researching I looked for an article on Dovedale and found an article on Dove River. That was unhelpful, so - in the manner of Wikipedia - I have set about tidying up the situation by developing two distinct articles. I have been developing the articles based on the existing information in the River Dove article, and on the quick research I have done on the internet. This is limited stuff, and I have only been spending some quick time snatched while at work; however I feel I have been positively expanding Dovedale. As you have an interest in the area, and presumably know some better sources that I have found, it would be great if you added to the articles. I enjoy working with others and would welcome working with you on these articles. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob. I had my 4 pennyworth on the Dovedale article talk page. SilkTork has done some useful stuff, we just need to sort out the common sense of it. I think the River and "tourist trap" are two different articles -if we have the time/energy to sort out which is which (at least for now) then we will be better off I think. Victuallers (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite its title, the Ashbrook & Powers reference has a section almost wholly on the Busoni opera, and appears factually a more than adequate reference to me (have you read it?) The Wong/Naxos version of the Suite is available as a download. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I'd suggest looking at Grove - the basic reference for Opera - or if you haven't got it then Oxford or Viking. Also please give full details for Wong/Naxos. If you need a model there are lots available - maybe La Cenerentola. Hope that helps. The format for opera articles is now well established and the requirements are quite detailed. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the other opera articles use 'synopsis' rather than 'plot'. We try to be consistent to make it easier for the reader. I think it would be a good idea to have a look at some other opera articles to see how they have been put together, and also at the style guidelines at the Opera project. If you have any fundamental disagreements with current practice please put them forward on a talk page, but please don't make random reversions as this can be such a waste of everybody's time! Best regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could we get some opinions on the current state of the page List of poems by Philip Larkin? On the talk page you'll see Snowmanradio and I are in disagreement over a problem that's cropped up. Thank you almost-instinct 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's the search for Alvarez's intro in The New Poetry? I've been trying to use Motion and Bradford to get at least something, but they give very little of reported speech. I'd like to put in something of Larkin's reception history: IMO that is the remaining big gap in this article. I get the impression that AA is, historically, the most important source, so getting it straight from the horse's mouth would def be for the best. If you are unable to find it I'll cobble together something, in the hope that one day you'll wipe it and replace it with something better! almost-instinct 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B it is! I've started the boring slog of accumulating information from the books I have (Motion, Bradford) here. If you have any of the other books mentioned in the PL bibliography eg James Booth (2005) Philip Larkin: The Poet's Plight or Andrew Swarbrick (1995) Out of Reach: The Poetry of Philip Larkin or Terry Whalen (1986) Philip Larkin and English Poetry and see something in them relating to the reception history that these two don't cover could you add another section? Once I've got it all down in one place I'll then try to slap it into something readable. Advice at any stage would be appreciated, as always! almost-instinct 14:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm currently wrestling with how to best deal with weeds. Disambiguation pages are meant to distinguish between several potentially confusing terms - but someone is extremely unlikely to type in "weeds" and expect to get to "widow weeds", a term which is only used in old english. They are however, very likely to expect to get the TV series with that exact name. Since weeds is not exact to widow weeds, I don't believe it's a necessarily a solid assumption they expect to get from one to the other. There should be a way of distinguishing between the pages, but I don't know if a DAB page is a good choice. The best bet might be to simply redirect Weeds to Weed (disambiguation). A proliferation of DAB pages isn't a good idea in my mind, they should be centralized as much as possible. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists also states that DAB pages shouldn't contain links that have part of the page title. I'm not sure what's the best solution, so I've brought it up here.

Also, the July 15th version has a couple mistakes per the MOS:DAB - it needs a {{disambig}} template, and each line should have a single wikilink only. I'd also lead with "weeds is a plural of weed" as it's the most relevant hit. Widow's weeds itself redirects to a disambiguation page between the clothes (which has no acutal page of its own, it's mentioned in Mourning#United Kingdom) and the album. Thanks, WLU (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it certainly has a better pedigree than the show, but the point of DAB pages and their essential organization is assisting navigation. If someone is looking for clothes, it's unlikely they'd type in "weeds" but if they're looking for the show, then it's quite likely they would. DAB pages are also not information pages, they should have only enough content to direct to the main article, which is expected to have a name that is close enough to be potentially confusing. Even putting in a hatnote, it would be quite strange to see For the old English term for clothing, see clothing or somesuch. I don't believe most readers would confuse clothing and the show, and the point of a DAB page is to clarify potentially confusing terms. There are several issues with how "weed" and "weeds" are dealt with collectively via DAB pages, so I'm hoping someone at WT:DAB will have clarification or a solution. If not, we can always ask for a WP:3O or WP:RFC. WLU (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better if you do it, actually. Best yet would be to find a middle ground. For example, while one editor wrote that meltdown is an incorrect term, it might be better to say that it is a colloquial term, or something like that. Going back and forth between two versions rarely results in progress. It's worthwhile to seek consensus on the talk pages too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had no idea that's what you meant. I've copied the discussion over. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Linuxlad:

Thanks for the reminder of my edit to this article. As it was made back in June, it had gone off my radar screen, which is not that large in any case.

I have restored the quote from GBS, as I suspect your background in music is greater than mine. I continue in the belief that the quote by itself makes a very sparse and unbalanced "critical review" section. I will try to augment it.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ExLibre (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Re: Your new page, Marc Boxer - Note that he was christened Mark, although he used Marc as a pseudonym - so the page title must either be Marc, or Mark Boxer[reply]

I have done some editing to some of the North Staffs articles, such as Flash, Staffordshire and Hollinsclough and created an article for Three Shire Head. Some time I may get a round tuit to add some photos from my collection. I would like to sort out the River Dove article, especially the correction that it is NOT in Derbyshire - it is the boundary with Staffordshire, so it is just as valid to name the article "River Dove, Staffordshire". One of the next on my list has to be Longnor which claims that the village grew up in the 1850s around the market. Yet Longnor Methodists date from a century earlier, and one of these later provided John Wesley with lodgings when he visited Holland. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC) moved from User page. RWH Linuxlad (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I should have put my message on this Talk page. I think I ended up on you main page because I followed the link from one of the other pages somewhere (possibly Hollinsclough or Longnor History or something similar). I like the quote about the best bits of Derbyshire. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Linux Unified Kernel, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--

oh, here. my God .

Linux Unified Kernel is a well-known project in China. They should search " 兼容内核 " (Chinese) in www.baibu.com and not google.

--Linooxlee (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you think that Third Cambridge Catalogue of Radio Sources should be supported by WP physics? Clearly radio astronomy is of interest to WP astronomy, but I don't see how this article is of anymore interest to physics than any other astronomy article. (I fail to see how the fact that Cambridge has a retarded way organizing its astronomy departments makes this subject of more physical interest.)

If you really feel that this article belongs in WP physics would you please gauge its importance to that project by supplying an importance rating in the banner? (TimothyRias (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of On His Blindness, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/106.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I lived there (including the winter of 1963-4), I have an interest. I am about to restructure the article. Picking up your suggestion about renaming as Wetton, Staffordshire I may as well do that now, and let you work on the disambiguation page. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Linux Unified Kernel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Unified Kernel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Linooxlee (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crownest has expressed interest in reviving this. Since you were a member of the FD project (now converted into a taskforce), I'm wondering if you'd be a part of the Taskforce. The taskforce is undergoing a significant overhaul at the moment, and by the end of it, it should be fairly easy to get around and there should be a nifty compendium of useful tools for people interested in FD. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated SQEP, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SQEP. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mblumber (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article of yours is at AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am a Hotel. Iowateen (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mary Ansell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kyle1278 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy deletion tag and replaced it with a reference tag and a notability tag. The best way you can make sure the article stays is to add reliable references. It will not be deleted anytime soon but it dose need some more context to prevent it from being deleted later. If you need any help with anything feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers Kyle1278 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Linuxlad! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 15 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. John Menlove Edwards - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Richard Bell (director) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Herr Olof och Älvorna, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. iBen (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can see you are a very active editor and fix typos etc, so I hope you won't mind me pointing out (re Peter Townsend (sociologist)) that the UK town is Middlesbrough whereas Middlesborough is in Kentucky. Honest! Hope this helps, cheers, _Middlesbrough">DBaK (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)_Middlesbrough">[reply]_Middlesbrough">

The article Kenneth H. Cooper has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP since January 2008. I can't find any reliable independent sources which verify the information in the article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry to bother you - I can see you aren't editing much but I hope you might see this and feel like replying. I was struck, at your nice, slowly-growing stub Reef knoll, by the word "immense" in the first sentence. I'm not of the school of thought that says no interesting or colourful language must ever be used here, and I certainly have a few personal favourites that I hope will never be found by the grey-faced Pilgrims of Conformity. Having said that, I'm slightly troubled by "immense" as it seems a bit context-less, and I think I'd be troubled if, say, a school student used it - raw - as a description in an essay. (Fortunately we know that no student ever copies from Wikipedia so that's OK, though.) I was wondering, do you think there's any way of putting it into context, giving it a bit of a sense of scale or something, without destroying your nice language? If I just go charging around in my size 10s I'll probably just make it worse. I do think, though, that it's difficult at the moment because "immense" is so, well, immense - is one immensitude worth two Roseberry Toppings, or a third of a Matterhorn, or what? All comments very gratefully read! Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mourning ring has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced ring classification that seems to be self evident. Referencing articles only mention a ring in passing so no real draw of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hasteur (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Christine Mary Hall (circa 1984).jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Christine Hall on Bheinn a' Bheithir (1 March 2006).jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wickwar Brewing Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Turnpike (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turnpike (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

toweli (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]