User talk:Ephebi

Welcome!

Hello, Ephebi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, 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! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 02:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On December 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norwood (charity), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello Ephebi, and thanks for creating this article, which GeeJo kindly nominated for the main page. In future feel free to self nominate - the majority of articles are selfnominated. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Dictionary of Biography

Hi, Ephebi - you seem to like editing articles about famous Australians from the past. I wonder if you would like to take a look the project page Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography (Shortcut: WP:ADB) and see if you could help out to edit or create new articles. Thanks. - Diverman 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiliam Burges

Hi, have removed your dates for WB's father. Don't know the dates myself but those entered cannot be right as it would make him 110 at death and also he would have died after WB. Perhaps they could be re-instated if we can find the right ones. KJP1.

Sorry, again removed the dates before I saw your comment on my page. Will re-instate. However, I stillfind the dates highly implausible. Whilst WB did die young, it seems improbable that his father died aged 90. Also, sure I read somewhere that WB's inheritance from his father funded his early career - clearly such an inheritance would only materialise on the death of AB. Will check further.

KJP1 08:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Got a mate who knows much more than I about geneology to look into WB's father. You were quite right on death in 1886, apologies and congratulations. However, his reasearch shows AB as being 79 in the 1881 census and 84 in the year of his death. That would give a year of birth of 1802. But shall leave as 1796 for the present. But am heading to West Norwood tomorrow so will see if I can find the grave.

Regards.

Thanks for the directions. I shall see if I can post a photo.

KJP1 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 19:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the most helpful feedback. I shall now go hunting for a "greatest ever" reference but I think it'll be another from Mordaunt Crook.

Best regards.

KJP1 (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ephebi

You've been very helpful previously and I now really want to take the William Burges article to B status. If you have time, can you either indicate what needs to be done, or point me in the direction of where I might find guidance as to what needs to be done? I've researched other B rated architect/architecture articles and they're not that helpful. Some are clearly better than the WB article and some, to me at least, are inferior. So I'm a bit stumped. Any advice would be much appreciated. Yours in anticipation. KJP1 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Really appreciate your continued interest in this article. I think a picture of Burges's tomb would be great. Do you happen to have one which could be uploaded? Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Re. the respective dates for William and Alfred's deaths, I've just found a reference in the history of St. Fin Barre's Cork to a memorial window which Alfred paid for in memory of his son. So yet more evidence, not that any is now needed, as to your being right that the father outlived the son. Thanks again and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category for Deletion discussion on Category:Burials

I have nominated Category:Burials and all its subcategories for deletion. You may comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 21#Category:Burials. Dr. Submillimeter 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House categories

I would suggest placing all houses that could be described as houses in the appropriate subcategories of Category:Houses, even if they were built very recently. Part of the problem with the "house" categories is that the difference between "house" and "building" is poorly defined. This was broguth up during some of the discussions, but we never really discussed the issue. The first definition given by http://www.m-w.com is "a building that serves as living quarters for one or a few families". That may be enough to distinguish between which buildings should and should not be placed in this category. (In this case, Citygate ecotower and BedZED should be left out of this category.)

If you want to separate older houses from newer houses, I suggest developing some type of objective inclusion criteria for separating them. One possibility is to seaparate houses by century (e.g. Category:19th century houses in London, Category:18th century houses in London, etc.). Another possibility is to use "listed" to distinguish older and newer houses. However, keep in mind that even 20th century buildings (such as the Trellick Tower) may be listed. (However, some people could call buildings such as the Trellick Tower "historic". I saw someone on BBC One and an article on the BBC website say this.)

I hope that this is helpful despite our disagreement on using the word "historic" in these category names. Dr. Submillimeter 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not like my first suggestions on separating houses by century, how about Category:Houses in place built in the Nth century? Also, really consider writing more specific categories for listed buildings. What would be wrong with Category:Grade II listed houses in London as a subcategory of Category:Houses in London and Category:Grade II listed buildings in London? (The housing category seems like another problem.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic civil engineering landmarks

I just wanted to turn the category into a proper noun (Category:Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks). (I almost nominated it for deletion, but then I decided that the designation scheme is just like any other designation scheme used for categorization in Wikipedia.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your comments are much clearer now. Dr. Submillimeter 15:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Letts

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. Don't worry about the quotes, it's no problem. I moved the article from "Thomas Letts" to Thomas Letts. It should be ok now. Cheers Paul20070 11:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Norwood

Just telling you that I must of mistakenly taken of the Lambeth one, but Upper Norwood does not in any way include Bromley! Bromley is not at the top of the hill and therefore not in Upper Norwood boundries! Bromley stops at Crystal Palace Parade, and then Croydon, Lambeth and Southwark take over. So I will be taking Bromley off the Upper Norwood page. Pafcool2 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pushback source

Hey, thanks for your add to the Pushback article. Do you perhaps have a source about Virgin Atlantic trying out towing a/c to the runway instead of taxiing? I find this an interesting fact, so I left it, but it would be really good if we could add a source for that. Thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in on someone else's conversation here, but they put out a press release on this about two weeks ago; it's probably on their website somewhere — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord-Lieutenants

Thank you for bringing that Royal Warrant up, it's a very interesting point. Do you know where these things get published? I'd like to see if there was a similar amendment to the order of precedence in England and Wales, but I couldn't find the Scottish Warrant in the London or Edinburgh Gazettes. Choess 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knight's Hill

Is this edit correct? I'm not 100% certain so I haven't reverted it, but I think it is the Knight's Hill in W Norwood that was historically an outlying part of Tooting & not the one in Tulse Hill. (As the original author of the article, I am glad someone's at least taking enough of an interest in this article to edit it! Usually, once an article reaches GA status loads of people dive in and start adding to it, but this one seems of no interest to anyone... — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

political positions

You have a reasonable position, though one I don't obviously agree with. I believe the two people who supported the "potential..." rename were supporting something that would not have survived a renomination, but that's just my opinion, obviously. Bring it up on DRV and if others agree, it'll probably be changed. That would be fine with me.--Mike Selinker 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway

The Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway was authorised as a broad gauge railway but was not built as such. There were a few half-hearted attempts by the Great Western to force the company to lay a mixed gauge but the third rail was only laid on a short section and in such manner as to make it unusable.

The offical Board of Trade records in The National Archives are full of inspectors' reports complaining about the poor engineering and the failure to construct the broad gauge as laid down by Parliament, but in the end the arguements fizzled out and no broad gauge trains were ever run. This is why I do not believe it should appear in Category:Broad gauge (7 feet) railway companies. Geof Sheppard 12:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina

Hi, since you can't quote Wikipedia as a reliable source, I changed the ref to put the PDF used in the article you linked. I also added it was one of the five deadliest Hurricanes, since it is also written in the PDF. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks. Ephebi 15:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Carbon credit

The POV is definitely better; a lot of the stated facts on both sides still need references, though. Thanks for your expertise! Mbarbier 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find where you'd moved my post on Carbon trading to Carbon tax. Can you help. John D. Croft 01:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of ???

Bizarre! Needless to say, that was not my suggestion - and the category I wanted dates added to was a different one. I am travelling or I might well have gone for Bhg´s suggestion. But anything that was appropriate under the old name should still be appropraite under the new one. Johnbod 12:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London congestion charge

Thanks for taking the time to read the report and improving the reporting of the effects. It's made a big difference to the readability of the article. Regan123 (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and a belated Happy New Year. Do you think we should go for FA status on this now? --Regan123 (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep, I thinks its looking pretty good, and its stabilised quite well. PS - while you're at it, thought you might like to check out a new one I've done on Traffic in Towns aka Buchanan report - another seminal backgrounder from the 60's. Ephebi (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Another well written article which I have rated as B class for WP:UKROADS (which I hope you'll join). Regan123 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC) The Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London congestion charge review page is up and running. Regan123 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it made it to Featured Article status. Well done on all your work on the article. Regan123 (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

What I'd recommend is periodically running your edits through AWB - select "Special page" from the drop-down menu, paste

Contributions&contribs=user&target=Ephebi&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 into the search box,

and select "make list"; check the "Enable regex spellcheck" and "Skip if no typo fixed" boxes; then, select "save settings as default" from the file menu. This will then skim through your last 1000 mainspace contribs for typos. You need to manually check all its suggestions, as the spellchecker's fairly hairtrigger and suggests a lot of false-positives.

When I get the chance, I try to run Recentchanges, Newpages and New account contributions through — an awful lot of new material is prodded/speedied for "looking messy", and this cleanup at least gives them a fighting chance. As long as you have a reasonable size monitor, you can leave AWB running in the background (check "low thread priority" in preferences) and periodically flip over to it to see what it's found. — iridescent 23:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs and punctuation

It apepars I slightly mis-spoke. The guidance isn't actually in the manual of style, it's here: Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place ref tags , neither is it any longer so cut and dried as to whether it should be before or after (so long as the articleis internally consistent), which I don't think was the case before my edits in any case. Personally, I think having the footnote after the punctuation is aesthetically more appealing, but that's a personal opinion of course. David Underdown (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi Eph, thanks for writing. I will attempt to explain the use of the new reference format that you encountered.

The manner in which Wikipedia cites reference sources can be found in {WP:REF} which is an extensive guide to how to cite sources but yet there is an interpretation of two factors that is involved. References as a bibliographical term is a nebulous one and is not specifically used in cataloging, rather it is a description of sources. The references area remains a kind of a "catch-all" in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research, then a "Further Reading" section can be established.

The actual cataloging terms in use in Wikipedia are "Notes" which refers to either footnotes or endnotes and "Bibliography" which is the full record of the information source. Quite a while back, and I do not know who actually began the practice of "nesting" the notes and bibliography sections, but an editor in the {Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography} project group had created a separate set of templates that incorporated the three terms, with "References" as a main heading (again primarily a Wikipedia convention not found in most published works) and the "Notes" appearing as endnotes using previously developed <reflist> templates, followed by "Bibliography" that uses the actual library cataloging terminology with the use of <refbegin> and <refend>.

One of the advantages to this new set of templates is that it places the endnotes in close proximity to the reference source, especially useful if there is a series or multiple citations from the same source. Another feature is that the new templates have condensed the text considerably and that is appreciated whenever a very lengthy list of bibliographic records is involved. See: Amelia Earhart as an example of how the templates have worked to conserve space. When the first instances of the use of this template became noticed in the Aviation Project Group, it was quickly adopted as a "clean" alternative to the earlier format of separate "Notes" and "References" section which was always clumsy as many editors prefered the use of the term, "Bibliography."

It still remains a matter of preference for editors as to which format to use and I have seen a number of other aliterations and variations on the theme but generally prefer a widely-accepted model that is able to incorporate both the "Notes" and "Bibliography" sections together yet keeping the main heading of "References" intact. In reading carefully the essays and other articles from proponents of various reference sourcing styles that you provided in your opening query on my talk page, you will note that the new templates do not change any of the previous section guides; in retrospect, the templates enhance the use of the previous notes and references sections without loss of information or major change to the bibliographic record.

FWIW, let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. I am also an editor (by trade) and an author who has worked with a myriad of editors from line to graphic and overall concept editors in five publishing houses. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the extant templates. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References" under the sub-heading of "Bibliography." In the Reggiane Re.2000 article for example, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. It is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing in citation/reference notes. The "true style guide" is not determined by Wikipedia but recommendations are made as to following recognized standards. It is always preferable to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citations in question, they are written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In terms of adoption of a style guide, I don't not believe there was ever a fulsome discussion on the various merits of either/or systems just a general acceptance that the earlier reference/notes did not allow for a determination of a bibliography and that the new format provided a clean alternative. FWIW The style guides provided by Wikipedia do not preclude this alteration. Bzuk (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Joshua Field (engineer)

Hello, I notice that you are interested in West Norwood Cemetery and have contributed to the above article and wondered if you could help me. I currently cannot find any information regarding the date of birth of Joshua Field and hope that you can help me out. I assume you live near to the cemetery, could you please check what date is shown on his grave? Please don't go out of your way to do this, it's just that I can't find any reference to it anywhere (other than it being in 1786) and I have checked almost everywhere for it. As i say don't do this unless you happen to be passing (It may well be that it's unknown!) it's not urgent it's just that the article looks a little incomplete without a birthdate. Thanks for any help you can give me - Dumelow (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you tell, I have a soft spot for our engineers. Unfortunately I don't have any more detailed info on his birth date to hand. In fact, one of the current DNB authors gives 1787–1863, which differs from teh Friend's biography & WP article. Although there are 300,000 burials in WNC his sarcophagus is in a very accessible area of the cemetery so it should be possible to track him down without having to don the wellies! Can't do anything for the next few days but will see what I can find out. If you know any more about him then do help expand the article! & if related then drop us an email via the Friends of WNC website (let me know here if you have) & we'll see if we can get a photo to you. Ephebi (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late reply, I haven't had much time lately. Thanks for agreeing to check the grave I am very grateful for that. I am always on the look out for more bio details for engineers to expand wp articles as some of the are very short and not very informative so i'll continue searching my university library. I am not related to him, but he was the first of my articles to correct the shortage of presidents of the ICE on wp, a subject i am interested in. If you can get an image easy enough that would be great, but it's not too important at the moment, I tend to steer clear of uploading images as I have not yet found the time to read all the copyright guidelines but I assume most images of him will be well out of copyright by now. Again thanks for the help. - Dumelow (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you have cleaned up the above article and added references, thanks for that. - Dumelow (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building Schools for the Future

Hi, placing references is not covered by the MoS - instead see: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Where to place ref tags. Personally I prefer the "Nature" style that is mentioned there, as opposed to the US style which was chosen by one American body in the 80s, as this keeps items within the same clause or section of the sentence, and helps readability, IMHO. The BFS article had a mixture of styles, and I had actually tidied it up for consistency before you changed it around again. I was just about to update the article with more info on the primary school programme, but I'll wait 'til you've seen this before proceeding, to avoid any more edit conflicts. Regards Ephebi (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I hadn't actually been aware of the multiple "accepted" variations of referencing, as I always thought it was the "CMoS" style that was Wiki standard. However, if either is deemed equally acceptable, than that is completely fine and I apologise if you feel inconvenienced by my amending (doesn't matter to me the origin of the style). Like with my edits there were a few spelling errors (I didn't really check one edit properly), I noticed also you had made some format errors in ref tags that needed correcting, hence the punctual edits. None the less, by all means update the article as you feel best suits (even if that changes my edit) and we can both be aware of such minor technicalities :) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Energy elasticity , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camulodunum

Do you have a source for this? The template is about towns during Roman times, not Celtic. I haven't been able to find any sources to suggest that throughout Roman times (keep in mind the length of time they were in Britain) it was considered capital at all.[1] - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the related article - there's lot of info on this out there - I'm sure if you were to even google on the iceni uprising you'll come across references. Note that the first colony took over the ancient town of Cunobelin - "Old King Cole". If you find something to disprove it, then you better take it up with the Town Hall & the Colchester Archaeological Trust ;-) Ephebi (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all the books I have on the subject, nowhere does it claim Camulodunum was ever its "capital city of Roman Britain".. it was one of the many Celtic capital (of a specific tribe) prior to Romans arriving thats for sure, and was the first place the Romans took, but nowhere does it say it was officially named a "capital city" by the Romans, because Britannia itself didn't even exist yet.

All of the Celtic tribes had their own pety kingdoms (many up and down what would become Britain), essentially, Camulodunum was the "the main town of Roman Trinovantes terriory", before they had actually defeated anybody else to form Roman Britain, as the template is about Roman Britain then it doesn't belong to be marked as a capital. Camulodunum essential acted as a point for them to launch an invasion on the rest of the island, standing in it for a couple of years out of the 400 or so the Romans were on these islands, doesn't make it a "capital" and the Romans never named it as one. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic Aviation and Kyoto

Are you sure that Kyoto excludes all aviation? I am aware that international aviation was excluded due to the complexities of allocating emissions, but I thought that there was no such issue with domestic aviation. --FactotEm (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very comprehensive reply. --FactotEm (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felixstowe F.3 etc

Hi, I suppose this is an issue with the manufacturer template approach, in that the F.3 was made by at least 4 different manufacturers including Shorts. As things are at present, each manufacturer's template ought to include this type, with redirection (as is the case with Shorts) to the Felixstowe article, so that there is no duplication. Shorts made approx. 70 Porte-designed "Felixstowe" flying-boats, of which were 35 F.3s, the rest F.5s for the Air Ministry and Japan, so it is certainly not 'incorrect' for them to appear in the list of aircraft built by Shorts. Where do think we should go from here? --TraceyR (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm Congestion Tax

In the article Congestion pricing, you made some editing to state that the Stockholm congestion tax was only a test. From what I read in the respective wiki article, this scheme was made permanent since 2007 even with congressional approval. Can you clarify which is the right information please, or were you just trying to make a reference to the 2006 trial period, but then, info regarding the permanent status should have been kept in the article? Thanks.21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)~

I've only seen information about the 6 month trial period - if you have more up to date information then please add it. I'd be particularly interested if there are technical reports on its traffic effects (I prefer information in English but can read a little bit of Swedish/Norge). Thanks. Ephebi (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then I am going to rework a bit your edit, to make clear the difference between the trial period and permanent implementation in 2007. I'll get back to you soon with some references regarding last year implementation.Mariordo (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only English website with updated info is the site of the Swedish Road Administration, that has some statistics up to December 2007. I couldn't find before-after comparisons. Real traffic information is available only for the trial period from several environmental group's sites, just Google it! Mariordo (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I already undid your edit but then included most of your modifications afterwards, and now it makes a difference between the 2006 trial and the 2007 definite implementation. Go and take a look at it.

Thanks - have done. looks fine 8-) I'd like to get some meaningful statistics in an "effects" section but its hard to get meaningful statistics out of the Vägverket site - my Adobe reader says most of their PDFs are broken - can you read any of these? Ephebi (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trams in London

Hi Ephebi - My main purpose was to disambiguate omnibus and correct the spelling of 'Bombadier'. The ref formatting change was part of AWB's general fixes, in line with WP:CITE#Ref tags and punctuation. It's not possible to switch off only this fix. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bug, it's a difference of opinion. No other editor has complained. You are at liberty to revert the changes if you take such exception to them. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chios.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Congestion pricing

Thanks for your contributions on this article. Do you want to participate in the discussion regarding a proposal to merge congestion pricing with time-base pricing, which I opposed for the reasons explained in the talk page. Mariordo (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Reuter

See my answer to you on discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.172.154 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

You will find this example in WP:cite - The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]

   Notes

      1. ^ Miller 2005, p.23.
      2. ^ Brown 2006, p.46.
      3. ^ Miller 2005, p.34.

   References

       * Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
       * Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.

that is why I keep changeing your edits. You are using

The Sun is pretty big[1], but the Moon is not so big[2]. The Sun is also quite hot [3].

Which is not as per WP:cite.Pyrotec (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. You also seem to have reverted my changes as well.

I have no particular objection to your "Nature" type referencing; it just does not seem natural to me. I suspect that there also is a bit of anti-USA feeling attached to it; and, I note that you choose to use US sources when it suits your purposes. The system to which you object is called "Havard" referencing; and I used in for both of my UK post-grad degrees, so that is how I expect to see references.

Penny is somewhat controversal but that is due to unreferenced (unverified) statements; some referenced statements that are unverifiable; statements that contridict published sources; and premature removal of {sources} and unreferenced flags.

I was intending to update the article once I had all the references to hand and I see that you have been adding material (some of which is referenced, some of which is not referenced and some of which is badly referenced); and one web citation that can only verified with an Athens logon - but presummably it also exists as a book, so why provide a web reference that many people cannot access?

As a forewarning, I have taken objection on grounds of verifiablity to your use of the 1987 Lorna Arnold reference, for which you have provided an ISBN and attributed the publisher as Palgrave macmillian. However Palgrave macmillian did not exist in 1987, it only goes back to 2002 and Palgrave only goes back to 2000. Lorna Arnold did have a book on the Australian tests published in September 2006, by Palgrave macmillian, with the ISBN given, but not the title that you used; and she also did a (the offical) report in May 1987, but that was published by HMSO. So you appear to have cross-mixed two documents on the same subject by the same author. I borrowed and read the 2006 book over Christmas - I expect to have a copy of the 1987 report by Wednesday. Basic errors in referencing such as this do not enspire confidence; especially as they can be verified by going to e.g. amazon, or by reading the book(s).

If you choose to revert the references back to your Nature references that I will not object to that; but I will continue to object to statements that are not referenced, or are unverifiable; or apear to have been taken from elsewhere without verification; or possibly made up.Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 1987 Lorna Arnold reference is: Arnold, Lorna (1987) "A Very Special Relationship: British Atomic Weapon Trials in Australia". London: HMSO. (Paperback) ISBN 0-11-7724241 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum-1. I now have a copy in front of me. That happens to be the title that you added to the McClelland Royal Commission article on 16 March 2008; so why is the reference in the William Penney, Baron Penney article, which you added on 20 March 2008, given as: Arnold, Lorna (1987). "British Atomic Weapons Trials In Australia". Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1403921024? A simple search against ISBN gives the matching book as: "Britain, Australia and the Bomb: The Nuclear Tests and Their Aftermath (International Papers in Political Economy)", (Paperback), by Lorna Arnold (Author), Mark Smith (Author). Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. There are several possible answers: your comparison of the MCClelland Commission Report and the UK report came from another source that you have not (yet) acknowledged; you are adding sources that you have not used; you are confused over your sources; it was a typo; possibly the two books are the same, the later being a revision of the first? I will now obtain a copy of the later book to confirm or eliminate that explanation; there could be others that I have not listed. I also have an Athens logon name, so do I need to double check that Oxford Dictionary of National Biography reference? Pyrotec (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overend, Gurney and Company

Thanks for your excellent addition to Overend, Gurney and Company, however you placed the new information out of chronological order in the article. I have moved your new information farther down in the article, but it still does not exactly blend in with the rest of the story told there. Can you please take another look and see if you can smoothe out the sequence of events? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good now! Thanks, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

palm oil external links

I'm sorry, looks like I were to quick to judge that link. =( The pages didn't look serious/notable to me but contained lots of ads. I'll be more careful in the future. --Apis (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotax neutrality

Hi! You recently voted to delete the Ecotaxes category on the basis that what can be considered an ecotax is POV. Since the majority vote was to delete, I think it's an indication that the Ecotax article might need some NPOV improvement. Would you help tag the POV areas so I can fix them? --Explodicle (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

If a prod tag is removed for any reason, it should not be put back into the article, it should instead be taken to AFD. See WP:PROD#Conflicts for details. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, there's nothing in the log or the history showing any AFD process, just the initial speedy and then the prod. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congestion pricing

Hi! I notice you were interested once in this article. Would you mind to participate on the GAR still going on. The reviewers made some changes that I would like you to take a look and give an opinion if necessary. As I was the main contributor I am trying not to participate to keep the evaluation more objective. Thanks. 02:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

New section on congestion pricing

Hi, I think the new section you edited is great, but after the GA process may I suggest the following improvements:

The theoretical explanation is a bit too long for GA standars, it would be great if you can summarize it to a more compact text, and consider also the long-term patter observed in Singapore.
I guess you might be aware that recently it was published in the British press a report regarding that traffic levels are today about the same as in 2002. For NPOV purposes it will be important to have a brief summary on the opposite reactions to this finding. In the end, it is exactly behaving as Singapore (see next comment).
Your explanation is limited to London, so I think you can make it more universal if you can drop a couple of lines about the experience in the Singapore case, which has been in operation for so many years that it shows that in the end you do not reduce traffic volume, you just keep it almost constant (despite demand growth everywhere else in the city), which means, the pricing scheme at least maintains throughput in the system avoiding near gridlock conditions (or keep the same quality of service as the Singaporeans called it). I think when working on the two Singapore articles I included some reference to this long-term behavior

At least I would like to hear your comments on these proposals, later on I might do the edits myself, now I am working on something else, and also I do have several to do's pending on this article: fix some ideas cut during the GA editing; update the section on airports (the US is about to implement slot auctions at NY) and the request you made to me about Stockholm some time ago. In the end, I would like to nominate the article for FA, but with the lessons learned during the GA, I better work slowly and your help is more than welcome. See you around.--Mariordo (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just to confirm, is this the pdf you mentioned to me, [2] because it refers only to the trial period. --Mariordo (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt answer and the materials provided, I will do it myself when I have time, been pretty busy too.--Mariordo (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ECG History - 1872

I read with interest your addition to the electrocardiogram page about the work of Alexander Muirhead at St Barts.

Have you discovered any corroborating evidence that he undertook the work other than what was written by his wife and published privately in 1926?

My notes on this period are here. http://ecglibrary.com/ecghist.html

Dean.jenkins (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the bio entry in Dictionary of National Biography which was published after I last researched Muirhead. About 10 years ago I contacted the archivist at Barts but they had no records of Muirhead or his work. The information about this experiment seems to come only from his wife's book about his life from 1926. Although a credible account there does not seem to be any other evidence. The real story is whether it was him or Waller that recorded the first human ECG. There is plenty of evidence for Waller's work but very little / none of Muirhead's. I'd be very keen to see how this could be researched from contemporary evidence of the time ... if it exists.

Dean.jenkins (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations

Hello Ephebi! I replied to your post atTalk:Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions and renamed the misleading headline. Could you please have another look and reconsider your reply? — Sebastian 18:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New congestion pricing articles

When you have time can you drop by Talk:Ecopass and give us your opinion. Me and our old friend are now just circling around the same arguments. He is insisting in calling the San Francisco congestion pricing and the Ecopass a road tax, and if possible, do this change in all others related to congestion pricing. I think this is blatant WP:OR as none of the proper sources call it that, nor technically is correct, and I already provided plenty of references. I rather prefer to spend my time productively that arguing in circles. I would really appreciate if you can gives a hand to move forward.--Mariordo (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your contribution was very helpful.--Mariordo (talk)--200.172.69.182 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you do not have much time, but once we advanced a little bit further with the proposed terminology section I really would like to have your opinion regarding 1) Is it justified to have such section? Does it add value to the article? 2) If yes, what do you think of the content? (feel free to contribute) is there any OR that needs RS?; and 3) I think this section does not imply that the rest of the article must be changed, as DF tried yesterday, editing all the occurrences in the article, do you agree? One more thing, he is playing around with the meaning of congestion charging and congestion charges, to me, it depends of the context, but, considering that English is a second language to me, congestion pricing = congestion charges as the lead already says, or am I wrong? Please wait at least until I make my proposal based on his, thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you have time, can you drop by my user page and e-mail me so I can sent you back a paper in PDF regarding the history of congestion/road pricing. It tells in detail the authors you mentioned. Also, I think it has good material for the article Motoring taxation in the United Kingdom, that by the way, it certainly has the wrong article name. It should be called Road pricing in the United Kingdom or something like that. I will be quite busy the next following three to four weeks, but I'll be checking from time to time the CP article, at least to do the necessary rv's. When the discussion in that one is finished, if ever, I will spent some time on the UK article, beginning by proposing an article name change.--Mariordo (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantiation asked for

Please provide the evidence necessary to support the serious accusations you made about me, and that I have already asked for here. Namely:

Which clearly minority POV?
List the dozens of articles.

-- de Facto (talk). 18:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to me to be three possible outcomes for this:

You provide sufficient evidence to support your accusations, and your attack is vindicated.
You retract your accusations, we "shake hands" and continue on our merry ways.
Your accusations remain standing, but unfounded, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions as to your motives.

-- de Facto (talk). 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above challenge will be ignored as obviously WP:BAIT 
Note the multiple complaints re WP:TE, aggressive editing & blocking on editor's talk page
Ephebi (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC) "Discretion is the better part of valour."[reply]

Fallacious excuses for not: a) providing the evidence necessary to support your serious accusations, or b) retracting your accusations are, obviously, not an acceptable alternative. -- de Facto (talk). 11:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

Good motif =>

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply

I finally replied to your post at Talk:Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions. Sorry that it took me so long! — Sebastian 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ephebi. You have new messages at Rrius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ephebi. You have new messages at HLE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey, Ephebi, I answered your message with a very short reply, you can see it here --JHvW (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killed on British Roads

Hi there. I have replied to you question on my talk page. PeterEastern (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left another response. PeterEastern (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

de Brazza

Thanks for your thoughtful post on my talk page. I understand your concerns. However, as is said over and over by the more experienced editors on the Reliable sources noticeboard, when something is sourced to a reliable source, it typically remains in an article even if a particular editor believes the assertion is not true. (I recently dealt with this in another article, where an editor felt that a report on Canadian Broadcast Corporation that a Tunisian businessman owned a house in Montreal, was false.) The solution in this case would be to add another reliable source countering the material, to present both sides of the issue and maintain neutral point of view. As for your section header question, I will take another look at the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listed building query

Hi. Thanks for this. That being the case, do you think it would be appropriate to remove the bold from the Grade I, II* and II items in the list immediately above? They do not appear to conform with the MoS section you quote either. My concern is that the over-emphasis on these leads to it being too easy to miss the references below to Grade III, Grade A and so on. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Thanks very much for that - interesting. It really turns out to be a bit of a game of Jenga, with interdependencies all over. I did genuinely end up there because I'd followed a link whose target I couldn't then see. Having said that, though, there would clearly be difficulty in trying to do anything much to improve the situation for those less-graded or unusual categories, and it's not really a showstopper, so I think I will just leave it and move on! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert

Thanks for your addition to the article. Would you kindly add a citation to your source? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ephebi. You have new messages at Talk:Colchester_Royal_Grammar_School.
Message added 17:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Listed building examples list

Hi Ephebi, thanks for your message. I wholly agree we don't want these lists degenerating into a raggle-taggle directory of people's favourite buildings. I must confess I'd forgotten that a figure of five was decided upon (so, obviously, go ahead and demolish Warwick Castle if you haven't already done so) - having said that, I think there's a a case for allowing slightly more on a one-per-building-type basis. I haven't sat down and enumerated them, but I'm guessing there would be maybe eight to ten. In any case, I'm travelling right now but will raise this issue on the article's Talk page when I return, and look forward to discussing it with you then. Best regards, Barnaby Barnabypage (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ephebi, I've posted a draft proposal at Talk:Listed building. Barnabypage (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St Cross, Manchester

I'm guessing not quite "streaky-bacon" enough for you. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

I saw you just posted a comment [3] on the RFC supporting DGG's view. I don't understand however how your comment about poor translation is related to the proposal or DGG's view. Could you please explain it to me? Thanks Yoenit (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage:Cold Spring Granite

Hi. I recently noticed the flag on the Cold Spring Granite page and wanted to communicate to you that I have removed non-notable resources and added notable secondary sources to the following sections: History, Notable projects. I would like to request that the flag be removed from this page. Thank you Wendyfables (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

In addition, I went back in and deleted the advertising tone of the page, as well as deleted any non-notable references. May 11, 2011 4:09 pmWendyfables (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Just checking in with you on your thoughts for the Cold Spring Granite page changes. Thank you 70.62.146.214 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2011

Palaiologos/Palaeologus

Hello! You are correct that the traditional, latinized form of the surname is Palaeologus. In Wikipedia, following some discussions in 2006 ([4] and [5]) it has been the norm for the past few years to use the transliterated forms for Byzantine surnames (Palaiologos, Komnenos, Lekapenos, etc) following the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and the trend in the most recent publications in the field (ca. after 1990). Of course "Palaeologus" is not incorrect, but since most articles by default refer to the Byzantine family and not its English or Italian branches, where the latinized/italianized forms were used, it seems logical to me to have the category reflect that. After all, the main article is Palaiologos. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I agree that there is no clear-cut "correct" stance here, and scholarly usage is by no means uniform (at least not yet, though the ODB form seems to be prevailing gradually). I would not however say that the issue "was settled" when these families settled in England. What about Maurice Paléologue and his Romanian-Greek ancestors, or the numerous other, more obscure Palaiologoi living in Greece today? I'd say this is a case of the primary topic, i.e. Maurice above or Margaret Paleologa should be in their native form, but the family as such descends from and is notable because of the Byzantine imperial dynasty. Anyhow, I am looking forward to those articles on the Palaeologi of England! Best regards, Constantine ✍ 08:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brompton Cemetery - Date of Transfer

Hello Ephebi - thanks for your input on St Woolos Cemetery. My first article so I'm still finding my way around.

Got your note on Brompton Cemetery actually being the first municipal cemetery - I've been looking for a reference to clarify the actual date of transfer to public ownership of Brompton. The History Page (Nationalisation Subsection) of the Friends of Brompton Cemetery states that it was bought under powers granted by the 1850 act, but says that the act was repealed in 1852, and the government tried to pull out, implying the transfer did not take place until after 1852, and that the company was involved in litigation until 1854, regarding the original purchase of the land.

Also, the National Archives has a catalogue entry for a series containing the papers of the Brompton Cemetery Company, running up until 1854, indicating the company was still running, and possibly in ownership of the cemetery, up until that year.

Leads me to believe that the company still owned the graveyard up until 1854, so the actual date in 1854 could be important for the claims being made in relation to St Woolos, as if it is in the first half of the year, then Brompton is the first public cemetery, but if it didn't take place until the second half of the year, then St Woolos claim to be the first would be correct.

If you've got more info, or know of a reference we can use, we could incorporate it in to your footnote, but if not, I'll do some digging and let you know what I find.

Thanks again Displaced1980 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speed enforcement

You ask me to not dismiss your comments. Sorry, but I do. I now have two comments on my Talk page from people I believe are like the cigarette companies, desperately looking for "science" to justify selfish and unacceptable behaviour, which they cannot admit. I have considerable experience in the road safety area. I am no longer directly involved, but still involved as someone who wants to individually contribute. All this is over an attempt to discredit one word in a Wikipedia article. I think it's pathetic. HiLo48 (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try to choose my words carefully. I will, if I believe it appropriate, call the behaviour of others (such as what they write in Edit summaries) stupid. That does not mean I think they are stupid. I always hold out hope that people can improve. I truly believe that far too much that is written against road safety improvements is self-justification for the unacceptable behaviour of drivers that has led to them being fined. Very little is rational. Any changes in articles on the matter really need to be extensively discussed and consensus achieve first. I will continue to react firmly against those who behave otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Boys

You may see I have developed the Old Boys article, which may help. Regards Motmit (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again

I think you may wish to contribute here. Moonraker (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, again

Various 'former pupils' categories, in which you have previously shown interest, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Occuli (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CfD Discussion

A CfD which you have been previously involved in has been proposed again at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_12#Category:National_Public_Radio. You are invited to participate in the current discussion. Frank | talk 01:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Granite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander MacDonald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited John Cyril Porte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing Commander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New cfds

I see you have also commented under the previous day's cfd. It vexes me that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups and also that it is somehow able to act in a concerted way, while most supporters of the status quo are not aware that new cfds are under way. Would we be able to form something like a "Fooian" wikiproject to make sure that supporters of the status quo are aware of what is going on? Moonraker (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a simple way to do that; I have resorted to patrolling the CfD pages every 5 days or so to see what they are up to. When I see matters affecting the Old Foo issue then posting a message in the Schools project appears to be the easiest way to raise visibility; people with an interest in Old Foo should make sure the project talk page is on their watchlist.

I see this as a systemic problem with categories as a whole in WP. As many of the "CfD Police" patrol full-time on CfDs they have developed their own view on what categories should look like - often ignorant of the subject details - and their own ponderous syntax that bears little relationship to fluent English, IMHO. Unfortunately the regular participants are appear to have less sensitivity to the world view than I would like e.g. British/Commonwealth experiences, language and nuances are sometimes lost on them.

WP's CfD pages provide them with their own forum, which is isolated from the relevant article pages where most editors want to spend their time producing good content. 80% of the CfD activity is mundane that would raise few eyebrows; but 5% of it is contentious. IMHO the problem arises from the absence of links between CfD and articles where the real editing goes on. My proposal at the CfD talk page is to introduce some level of transparency and accountability, starting with their responsibility to communicate to the editors who feel strongly enough about a topic to have joined projects. Ephebi (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I see that once again you have notified a select group of users all of whose views on the subject are well known to be on one side of the argument. Please can you stop doing this - this in itself creates ill will at least as much as pointing it out and also when it secures the desired immediate outcome of a discussion it makes it much less likely that it will be respected as a precedent. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please see my comment here? Moonraker (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Burges

I'm really pleased you like it. It has come on quite well since you added his grave in 2010. You'll have already found this out but Pullan was his brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan and Chapple his office manager, John Chapple. Pullan wrote The Architectural Designs of William Burges, a copy of which was recently on e-Bay, but rather beyond my reach at £600! Sometime I'd like to try to take the article beyond its present B rating but I'm not entirely sure what it needs. Best regards and thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's GA. He fully deserves it. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Tatsuno Kingo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Burges (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"

Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New CfD

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Goodall

Hello. You added to this article that Goodall died at Pentonville Road, together with burial information. Thanks, but would you please add a citation to the article giving your source for this information? For more information see WP:V. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right- and left-hand traffic

Hi, Ephebi. The title of the subject article is under discussion again. I am alerting you because you participated in a previous discussion on the matter. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francis Cook, 1st Viscount of Monserrate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Looking at the quality of your edits, I'm surprised that you do not appear to have yet had a barnstar. Here goes... Edwardx (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw Shucks. you are too kind. Ephebi (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert

I notice you helped initiate an RfC against user Johnpacklambert. Thank you for trying to keep everyone civil and open-minded. However, I worry that the proper form isn't being followed, which won't lead to the best outcome. Specifically, your first edit to the main page of the dispute was to put your comment on or endorsement of the RfC at the end, when the other parts of the RfC weren't even there; as it now stands, it seems inconsistent with the standard "Reminder to use the talk page for discussion", which states "Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." Could you either move your whole "Statement by..." section verbatim to the RfC's talk page, or remove it and edit the "Statement of the dispute" section appropriately to reflect anything you feel was missed?

talkback

Hello, Ephebi. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

p b p 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ephebi. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

p b p 20:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ephebi. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

p b p 05:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Dyce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Leonard's Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Harry Smith, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whittlesea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Hedley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lanchester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louis Haghe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Roberts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Saxby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kilburn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Douglas William Jerrold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crystal Palace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Frederick Albert Winsor, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Frederick Young, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lloyds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cemetery, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Miasma and Magnificent Seven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Maudslay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joshua Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward William Brabrook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wallington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telex origins

Hi Ephebi, do you know if the references you mentioned in the telex article are referring specifically to exchanges, or to the "concept" itself? IE, could they be using the term "telex" to refer to teleprinting in general?

If you do feel that they really are talking about some sort of exchange and directory, I'd argue for its inclusion into the article ASAP. I also find it interesting that the North American efforts started so much later.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything you said! Well, some google-fu is in my future… Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ephebi. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24.
Message added 07:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Howard Evans (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chartist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A CFD discussion you may be interested in - Churches/Church buildings

As a participent in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 17#Category:Churches, you may be interested in knowing that I've just initiated a new CFR discussion to fix the whole tree - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings. Feel free to participate there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unilever may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

tcm244-423162_1.pdf | title = Unilever's Position on Palm Oil SOurcing| accessdate=7 August 2015}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ephebi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ephebi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Ephebi! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 22:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ephebi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Ephebi! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Ephebi! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]