User talk:Chris j wood/2006

Re: Aylsham

Ah, yes, I thought I was a ref for the population only. Joe D (t) 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk/Suffolk border

See Talk:Local Government Act 1972, but basically - the parishes transferred were Belton, Bradwell, Burgh Castle, Fritton, Hopton-on-Sea. All these were south of the river Waveney. It doesn't however include all of what is Norfolk south of the river - Gorleston (also historically in Suffolk) was already part of Yarmouth and had been for a very long time. This would have been transferred by the Local Government Act 1888.

Also parts of Herringfleet and Corton were transferred, and were added to the parishes of Fritton and Hopton-on-Sea respectively. Unfortunately, it is not possible to reconstruct the original parish borders here from the Act. So you'd have to compare maps to see if anything of import was included in these parcels of land. Since Herringfleet and Corton continue to exist as parishes in Waveney district, I suppose not. Morwen - Talk 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency

According to the Penguin Dictionary of British History, the word constituency "was first used informally after the Reform Act 1832, and was then increasingly used as a formal term". I'm not sure what feature you're thinking of as defining a constituency, but it seems to me there was a gradual change from boroughs and counties to more proportionate constituencies, rather than a single point at which constituencies could be said to have been created. I can see that using constituency to describe electoral boroughs or counties which were abolished in or before 1832 may seem a little odd, but I'd rather see consistency and a clear definition within the article. Warofdreams talk 21:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydeny stats

In the last week the Australian Bureau of Statistics has redesigned their website, breaking links everywhere! I've fixed the link and provided a note on how to get to the raw data on the website. The addition of Assyrian was obviously bogus, demographics sections attract a lot of nationalistic vandalism.--nixie 00:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global context

Hi, Chris -- Apropos Selborne Common, I deliberately left out England, having read somebody's talk page (can't remember whose now) which complained about dumbing down. Rationale went as follows: if the user is bright enough to be reading this, he'll know where Hampshire is; and even if he doesn't, one click on Hampshire will tell him all. I think it can be annoying and impede comprehension when there are too many links in an article. What do you think? Puffball 10:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I'm not all that bothered; I just wanted to get another POV, so maybe we'll leave it! Puffball 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBT

Sorry- dislexic moment. I double checked that the F served the FERRY terminal, and mixed up the names.

Rivers Blackwater

I've now fixed most of the links to the pages. I disagree that pages shouldn't be moved without fixing all the links to them; that's what redirects are for! Besides, fixing a long list of links is far more easily done with a bot. Warofdreams talk 10:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading, Berkshire utilities

I've just noticed your edit on Reading, Berkshire "Rewrite this rather listy and over-general section in line with the utilities section of Boston, Massachusetts, a featured article." (I have a watch on the page, but I still haven't gotten used to the fact that the Watchlist only shows the most recent edit on any given page.)

Anyway, what you've done looks great. After I initially wrote the section I wasn't happy with it. It was a bit like too much structure and not enough content. About the Gas and Electric, I wanted to say that the situation was per the rest of the UK and perhaps link an article about the Gas and Electricity marketplace in the UK.

I was hoping to get round to completetly re-doing it, but what you've done is in line with what I was thinking anyway. Marvellous! Duckbill 14:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommented edit

I noticed you made a significant edit on Reading, Berkshire, but there is no comment against the edit. Not complaining; just mentioning something out of the ordinary. Duckbill 17:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lepton

Nothing against the town of Lepton. Scientific articles tend to get cluttered up with long lists of totally unrelated things that happen to share their names. If a Lepton, Huddersfield article does come to exist, you should make a Lepton (disambiguation) page with that and the Greek currency, and link to it from the top of Lepton. Thanks. -- Xerxes 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wormegay Castle

Sorry. I removed the category as you suggest, as no Norfolk tourism website mention the castle. Tim | meep in my general direction 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco

Why are you so obsessed with San Francisco? Moncrief 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't rightly know I was. Having worked for some years for a company based in the Bay Area, I've been there a fair few times, and it is a place I like. But I'd say the same about some other places I've visited a lot or lived in (say Hong Kong or Sydney). My recent episode of edits to San Francisco pages came about (as I find often happens on Wikipedia) by the way pages happen to link; I created a page on Hythe Pier in the UK; this took me to a page on Piers, which in turn took me to San Francisco via Pier 39. -- Chris j wood 18:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNG unitary as opposed to federal

I have responded to your query of the term "legislative" (as opposed to federal) regarding the constitutional arrangements of Papua New Guinea as follows:

I am the originator of the text you query and in this context "legislative" is another term for "unitary"; both are used in constitutional jurisprudence and I am by no means unaware of the use of the term "legislature" as opposed to executive and judiciary that you mention. However, this may be somewhat arcane in a general interest article and the fact that you were confused by this use of the term raises the possibility that others will also be. I have no objection to the (in this context) synonymous term "unitary" being substituted; if it is less likely to be misconstrued then it is an improvement. Thanks for your query; I honestly hadn't given thought to the fact that the dual meanings of the term could give rise to confusion. Masalai 06:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I had rather assumed that you were American and I apologise if my explanation seems mildly patronising given that it develops you are not. Your query provoked an entirely useful re-phrasing of the original; as your expression of confusion entirely legitimately points up, the term "legislative" is indeed ambiguous (albeit, strictly speaking, correct) and others would also doubtless have been similarly perplexed. Thanks. Masalai 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (London Underground)

Thanks for making the link in "London Underground" read "full stop or period". I myself was about to try to settle the thing by making it say "full stop (period)" when I found your edit. I hope this little fire is out now. President Lethe 15:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add my thanks; it's clear, looks tidy and reads encyclopedically (if that's a word). Nicely done. It's a lovely article by the way. Skittle 15:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have one small problem with the wording. Whether we use parentheses (curved brackets) or not, I think period should come first. This is not at all about national varieties of English, but simply about the placement of adjectives. This is something I often pick up on. For example, I prefer that "most beautiful, prettiest, loveliest" be changed to "prettiest, loveliest, most beautiful", so that it doesn't seem that "most" is modifying "prettiest" and "loveliest". I'm sure many think it's petty of me. But this is the same reason for which, I think, we shouldn't make it seem that "full" could possibly modify "period". I also tend to like shorter links. This is why I advocate a change to "period or full stop" or "period (full stop)", with whichever word(s) you choose being linked. I'm reluctant to make the change, because I hate the look of edit battles on the history page; but I will make the change if you guys don't object. (Also, I'll duplicate this little discussion at the article's Talk page; I hope you don't mind.) President Lethe 16:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T Third note on Muni template

Hi Chris-

I noticed you eliminated my note on the SF Muni template to the effect that the T Third line was not yet in service. While I admit that it clutters up the template a bit, I am a bit uneasy with just listing currently operating and proposed lines together with no indication as to which is which. Do you think there might be another better way to make this distinction? --Jfruh 13:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris - your idea works for me. --Jfruh 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Beach Line

Nice edits! Thanks! :) Bjrobinson 13:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Nugent Brooke

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Zachary Nugent Brooke may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. This article has therefore been speedy deleted for now. TigerShark 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Speedy deletion of Zachary Nugent Brooke

Hi Chris. Thanks for your note. The reason that the article was tagged for speedy deletion by another editor, and the reason that I deleted it was that it did not "assert the importance or significance of its subject". As you correctly state, non-notability is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion; but the absence of a reason why the subject could be notable is. This criteria is describe in more detail in Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. I don't have a strong objection to recreating this article, and I wouldn't try to stand in the way of you doing so yourself - but I think that if it is just recreated in its old format, it may quickly get tagged and deleted again. Can I suggest that you recreate it but add something that rectifies the issue described above? To make this easier I have copied the deleted contents here. Cheers TigerShark 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I think it is much better now. Mentioning his published works helps with the assertion of notability and should make it far less likely that somebody will try to speedy it. I'll stick it on my watchlist anyway and, who knows, I might even look the guy up and add to it myself. Cheers TigerShark 23:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly done -- Chris j wood 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football in England

When you edited this page a few days ago you chopped off a huge chunk at the end, this might have been due to the article being too long for your browser to edit, please be careful and check your changes. Bob Palin 15:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Piers

Hello, Chris j wood I noticed your interest in piers by your contributions to the Piers article. You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Piers, which is an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to piers. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.--Paul E. Ester 14:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Old Bradfieldians

Hi. The article you created about ACM Courtney should not have been deleted and the proposer and deleter were actually contravening policy (which says that only likely uncontroversial deletions should be performed in this manner - everything else should go to AfD). I have restored it. To be honest, I don't have time to create stubs for everyone I list in these articles, much as I'd like to, neither do I think it's particularly productive to reference every entry as coming from the DNB - a bit time-consuming. I think that they are unlikely to be vanity, however, given that they are dead (often long-dead) and have sensible descriptions (vanity entries usually being still alive, very young, and with ridiculous descriptions)! I remove plenty of vanity entries myself, but I find that some editors are a little too overzealous in their accusations of vanity and non-notability - often if they haven't heard of a person they automatically assume it must be vanity, which is a little idiotic. I find that these lists are a useful prod to others to create articles, however, and have seen many of those entries I created as red links turn to blue. I will create articles if I have time, but I work on several projects at once, so often don't. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trainswikiproject rating

With (I think) several thousand articles still yet to rate, I'm not spending a whole lot of time on each article right now. I'm working through the categories this month; I've gotten up to Category:Rail transport → Category:Railway companies → Category:Railway companies of the United States → Category:Arizona railroads. I think I'm somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 through on an initial pass with article ratings.

The split between Start and B class is more difficult to see on a quick once-over. A few things that I look for are references, images, a comprehensive set of headings, a good article length, no maintenance tags and more prose than lists. It is very likely that on further review, article ratings should be different from what I initially put on them (and I've found and rerated several articles that I've come across a second time). The easiest way to get me to do a more thorough review on a specific article is to list it on the assessment page as a specific assessment request; I generally take more time on these and will often leave comments for improvement. Slambo (Speak) 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island (Massachusetts) article

Hi Chris. There actually had been some discussion between User:Rich Farmbrough and myself User:Wikiklrsc (User talk:Wikiklrsc) before we moved the article on Long Island, Boston, Massachusetts. It's been moved around a bit too much now, so it must be stable. Personally, I am not a huge fan mf parentheses. I have been giving out references to the articles to people and historians. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very good, Chris. Excellent work. Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)[reply]

Train stations

Thanks for your comment on my talk page, I kind of got used to people reverting my moves on the spot or sending me hate-mail if they disagree, it's refreshing to discover there are people out there willing to work together rather than work against someone :)

As to the stations, the railwaymen have got a convention (I bet it's written down somewhere) to use the local names all over the world. I can't say it's not a good solution, as it would be a nightmare to organize a meeting at one station, when all the participants would have to buy tickets to 10 different places - all being one in fact (hope you didn't get lost with my reasoning). In short, the solution is pretty simple and unambiguous. Hence we have trains to all those Gare de, Hauptbahnhof, Estación de and so on. That's also why in the route planner of German Railways, when searching for links between "Rom" and "Warschau", you're directed to Roma and Warszawa. The same is true to other railways.

It's even easier with Polish stations as in all cases they are called only with the city name and the descriptive name, without the Polish word for station added whatsoever. Hence we have Kraków Główny and Warszawa Centralna. It's much easier that way, since otherwise we'd have to translate the names in their entirety, which might be a problem, as we'd have to translate Polish adjectives into British nouns. Warszawa Gdańska could be then "Warsaw's Gdańsk Station", "Warsaw Gdańsk Station", "Warsaw Gdańska Station", or any other approximation. At the same time an expression meaning Warszawa Centralna Station (dworzec Warszawa Centralna in Polish) would in Polish refer specifically to the building of the station, and not to the station as such (the structure rather than structure+timetables+trains+commuters, that is the entire phenomenon; I guess the difference is clearer in my native language).

Anyway, I guess the system adopted by the railways here in Europe is a decent solution and I'd leave the names as they are in reality, without the station or Station added. That said, I would leave the stations under their Polish, German or French names, without creating the English-local name mixture. What do you say? //Halibu tt 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I did not think of that. On the first thought I assumed that smaller stations do not merit their own article, but given the scope of wikipedia (to describe the entire world, more or less), I bet people would start writing articles on stations in the middle of nowhere (after all some of them might be, for instance, priceless examples of 19th century architecture). In short, you're completely right that for bigger towns the most natural way is to treat the train station names as if they were normal toponyms, much as names of boroughs, rivers, squares or streets. For smaller towns, where there is only one station (usually referred to by the name of the town by the railway world), the "station" or "Station" category is indeed needed.

Now then, do we have some Wikipedia:WikiProject Railways here to talk that part over with some other rail enthusiasts, or should we bring it somewhere else? As a temporary solution, we could agree to use the Deutsche Bahn journey planner as the main key (it's some sort of a standard in continental Europe and some national railway companies - Polish included - simply use the German planner instead of their own). If it lists the station under the complete name - we stick to it. If it lists only the name of the town - we add "station". I guess the lower-case would be better since it would suggest that the word is not part of the name itself, but I leave it up to native speakers to decide. What do you say? //Halibu tt 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I know Warszawa Śródmieście. You know, there's hardly anything in Warsaw that could be explained easily without going into history. The existence of Warszawa Śródmieście is simply a consequence of the evolution of Warsaw's transport system. So, first of all, please open this map (1935) and I'll try to explain that as shortly as I could ;)

First there were two lines on two sides of the river (explained that in Warszawa Gdańska), with the railway station of the Warsaw-Vienna line located more or less where the Centrum metro station is located now. It's marked on that plan as the easternmost building, partially shaded (as it was being demolished in 1935, when the picture was taken). Then, in late 19th century they decided to do something about the transport in Warsaw. They prepared plans (quite modern as per contemporary standards) of a new railway station and a tunnel running beneath the city centre and then across the Vistula, so that the passengers from Russia did not have to leave the train, cross the bridge, and board another train, on another station. However, Warsaw was under Russian occupation, a provincial town with a huge fortress, and any construction works were strictly regulated. Thus the plan had to be dismissed and it was not until 1930's that the tunnel was actually built. At the same time they started building the Warszawa Główna (Warsaw Main) train station, with a temporary wooden station right to the west of the former Viennese Station.

The new Warszawa Główna station was located precisely where the modern Warszawa Śródmieście is located. They built the infrastructure and almost finished the new station (it even received several international awards), but the war broke out, the Germans came, bombed it in 1939, and the works were halted. The station was partially rebuilt and served its purpose (here you go with some pics), but then it was completely destroyed in the effect of the Warsaw Uprising. Although the tunnel survived (it was blocked by perhaps the only underground barricade in the world), the demolished station was a pile of rubble. At the same time the post-war city badly needed a new train station and it was built much more to the west (also called Warszawa Główna, yet some 1,5 km west of the current Warszawa Centralna and some 2 km. west of the original Warszawa Główna), where there was less rubble and less infrastructure underground. Soon afterwards a new temporary wooden station was built on top of the tunnel as well, but the name of Warszawa Główna was already taken, so they renamed it to Warszawa Śródmieście (besides, the station was not Main any more). As I said, the building was destroyed, but the tunnels were almost intact and it was easier to build an additional train station there. When in the 1970s they started building the Warszawa Centralna, they turned the old Warszawa Główna station (then already known as Śródmieście) into a station for suburban trains. The platforms were refurbished a tad, but they were still the same old platforms built before 1939. And now, since June I think, they are refurbishing it once more (and they refurbish the tunnel as well, for the first time since 1930s). That's why it's there and that's why it's closed.

Phew, I hope that's at least partially understandable to someone who is not a Varsovian. BTW, speaking of the tunnel, there were plans of converting it into some sort of a second line of the Warsaw Metro, but so far nothing came out of it. //Halibu tt 15:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I've just spotted by an accident your last question for Halibutt. Just to add a detail, as far as I remember there is an underground link between Warszawa Centralna dungeon :> (if you have seen it, you know it's pretty large) and Warszawa Śródmieście. I made this way only once once some time ago so I can't be sure, however I found some proofing quote in the Internet. There have been some plans as well to make such an underground passage to the metro station Warszawa Centrum which is next in the row :) However, due to seperate managements (moreover metro is municipal while the railway is owned by the state) and perhaps some other difficulties such an idea just comes back like a comet to be put off again for some time.

The other thing is, that there is such an underground tunnel seriously planned between Warszawa Gdańska metro and railway stations (what is mentioned in the article already).

Best and hope I haven't bored you, :] aegis maelstrom δ 00:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K&A canal

About 2 years ago yu added some content to the article on the Kennet and Avon Canal. I've done some work on this and the Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal and have put them both up for featured status see discussions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal & Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kennet and Avon Canal/archive1. I'd be grateful if you had anything you could add to either article or the discussions. — Rod ^talk 12:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italics in Boston Harbor Islands article

Hi Chris. I did make an error in removing the italics in the list of islands in the Boston Harbor Islands article because I didn't see the clarification statement under it when looking at the list, in that a computer screenful doesn't show the note. Apologies. I might try to make it a bit better without the footnote so it's on top. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Notes v. References in the Boston Harbor Islands article

Hi Chris. You changed the "Notes" section in the article on Boston Harbor Islands to "References" saying "Call References References". Well, I didn't put those items in, as I remember, and they are rather odd "footnotes" (they _use_ the footnote mechanism) and I don't think worth being footnoted. For example, citing the current ferry schedule seems superficial, etc. There are usually several parts of the postlogue to an article: See Also, Notes, References, Bibliography, and then External links. I am not sure the Notes for this article are really needed. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)[reply]

Hi Chris. Thanks for the kind reply. I take all your points. I have used various techniques for footnotes, and was corrected a little while back to use the "ref"-"ref/"-"references/" mechanism for footnotes! So I had to go back and re-work my articles to use that mechanism. So I use this for footnotes. I was told it was the established mechanism, although the way footnotes are treated, various disparate mechanisms are used in WP. So, I'll leave it as it is, deferring to you. But if I add footnotes to the article I will have to put them under your references and its underlying ref-/ref-references/ mechanism. Any further thoughts are welcome. Bests Ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Hi again, Chris. Wikipedia:Footnotes says to use the ref-ref/-references/ mechanism (the Harvard system --- Harvard_referencing) for footnotes, which is what I was told a little while back. It was a pain to change all my articles and the footnote mechanism! It sort of also says that in Help:Footnotes, too. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Hi

Hi Chris, I just wanted to say you've done excellent job on the Whiteknights Campus article with the images, you have really worked hard- well done.--Tyopbop 18:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calf Island (Massachusetts)

Hi Chris. I have been working with the resident historian and archivist of Long Island (Massachusetts) to get many of my source documents and I have gotten a lot of material and unpublished City of Boston reports. For the moment, I can't really verify that Calf Island (Massachusetts) was called "Apthorps Island" although Charles Apthorp owned both Long Island (at some point for a while whilst others like Nelon owned it as well and it had been called "Nelson's Island" et al.) and Calf Island. I will look into it further. I don't have my documents here right now. I shall have to look into it. In the interim, any thoughts ? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 12:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)[reply]

Hi Chris. Got your kind reply. It is unclear just what the facts are (some are obscured by old and missing records) on "Apthorp's Island". I will try to make some enquiries and look up some material to see further light in the matter. I did add some new material to Long Island (Massachusetts) and Deer Island (Massachusetts) from historical sources yesterday. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)[reply]

Boston Harbour

Hi Chris. Excellent work on Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, etc. I wonder if you've ever visited Boston Harbour and its islands ! ;) I basically wrote most of the article on Loppington and it's been decades since I've been there in Shrops ! Chris Hawkins from the BBC is from Loppington. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note, Chris. Yes, it is interesting how one can write so well about such far away things (if anything is still far away anymore). I just walked through a tiny alley in Boston, a few minutes ago, and it reminded me of the "shuts" of Shrewsbury ! Amazing. I spend time on Long Island, Boston Harbour frequently. It is an amazing island, as is Moon Island, which I cross as well to get to Long Island. There are also haunted stories about the "lady in scarlet", etc. Confer the WP article on Long Island and the synopsis of Edward Rowe Snow's tale of the ghostly lady. It is New England, after all. Long Island is part of Boston, and the only way now to get to it is by a road through North Quincy, and a long causeway and viaduct. Before 1951, one could only get to it by boat from Boston. Hmm. That's Boston, Massachusetts, and not Boston, Lincolnshire ! Bests Ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Hi Chris. I found some fascinating reference books in the university library tonight on Boston Harbor Islands. See below, especially for historical reasons, Sweetser's book.

Mikal, Alan, "Exploring Boston Harbor", Christopher Publishing House, North Quincy, Massachusetts, 1973. ISBN -0-8158-0303-6
Sammarco, Anthony Mitchell, "Boston's Harbor Islands", Images of America series, 1998. ISBN 0-7524-0900-X
Sweetser, M.F., "King's Handbook of Boston Harbor", Moses King Corporation, Boston, 1882; reprinted in 1988 by Applewood Books, and The Friends of Boston Harbor Islands. ISBN 1-55709-108-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. This book was written about the time when the first Boston almshouse was being built on Long Island.

I added them to the bibliography in the article on Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. A lot of work is left to do in reading and referencing them in the articles. I also added some new external links, especially DCR. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Thanks, Chris, for your kind reply and thoughts. If you can get your hands on a paper copy, check out especially the Sweetser book from 1882 ! (cf.[1] [2], or a public library). Actually the Anthony Sammarco book has massively interesting photographs. And the publisher's (Arcadia Publishing [3]) series, Images of America, is extremely geographically comprehensive. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Boston Harbor Islands article

See Talk:Boston_Harbor_Islands. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, see also User talk:Rob Maguire on the original move motivation. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

John Lewis Partnership article

Thanks for spotting error in my edits. I had assumed that all pages on individual branches redirected to John Lewis (department store). I'll be more careful in future Davidprior 12:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed demerge of John Lewis (department store)

I've commented on the talk page Davidprior 12:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brunel

I rv'ed Brunel. Your edit summary was blank but marked m, so I assumed this was a mistaken edit? Maury 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It happens... but don't let it slow you down, there's always RVing! Maury 18:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]