User talk:GyroMagician

Clarification in SINAD Article

Could you please review the talk page for SINAD and help clarify which receiver sensitivity would be more sensitive? Is a 0.35 µV receiver more or less sensitive than a 0.25 µV receiver? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.166.85 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in medical imaging

Hi! if you can help make unsolved problems in medical imaging more clear or write more please keep it in your todo list, thanks for your help! NerdyNSK (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

realtime fMRI

Hi; I wanted to let you know that for the moment I'm removing the "realtime" section from the fMRI article -- I'm informing you because you moved it there, from a separate article, on Sept 11. Reasons for removing it are that the sources are weak (a conference talk and a news article), and I believe the passage gives a misleading impression: I know enough about the time delays and signal-to-noise issues in fMRI to know that the only way you could play table tennis using it is at subglacial speed, and even that would be a tour de force. If you think the passage should stay, I'm open to discussion. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Looie496, thanks for your input. I added the RT-fMRI section, using infomation from a separate page which has since been deleted. I don't know a lot about RT-fMRI, but do know that performing the required processing fast enough is challenging. I didn't check the references too closely, but I thought a couple of respectable groups were trying to do RT-fMRI - I don't know if a journal paperabout the topic exists? It is certainly a minority interest, so maybe it does not deserve a section. But if enough people would like to see it returned, it would be great if you would write a paragraph about why it is diffiuclt. GyroMagician (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation and inline citations

I've left you a note at User talk:Hertz1888#Punctuation, references and Coax cable. Gail (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

MRI

Hi GyroMagician: Thank you for correcting my errors about writing tesla unit with the first letter in uppercase. Also I thought that there were few links to tesla (unit) in that big article. I have now corrected a Gauss to gauss unit and added a link to it, wasn't any in the MRI article :)

I would like to serious contribute to the MRI article, but I really don't know much about it, hopeful in the future. Cordially --KDesk (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I think part of the problem with the MRI article is that it gets a bit technical sometimes, so it is useful to have 'non-experts' reading over it. I work in the field so I don't always notice. Either edit the article directly, or put questions on the talk page. As always, the page should be readable by anyone, so pointing or fixing bits where we haven't done that is important. I look forward to your contributions ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Malvern merging

Hi GyroMagician, I've left a suggestion on the Malvern article's talk page at Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire.
Kudpung (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a list of civil parishes to the Malvern District article. I don't know if this is a godd idea, but if you have time please see the comments here: Talk:Malvern_Hills_(district)
--Kudpung (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now made a template of malvern District Civil parishes to show on all the malvern District parish stubs.--Kudpung (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, found it. That's neat - I like the role-up - it keeps the page uncluttered, but all the info is there for those that want it. GyroMagician (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire

You did such a good job on editing my transport stuff in Malvern, I wonder if you could take a look at the inclusion (by another contributor) of the mammoth article on commercial radio in Worcestershire. It completely dominates the Worcs article, is long without any subsections, and in my opinion 99% of it belongs either in an article of its own or as a sub-page of radio in Britain or something similar.--Kudpung (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, that's a big section! I agree it's completely out of place. I'll have a look at it and see what I can do. And thanks - I'm glad you liked the transport edit, and didn't mind me cutting down what you had written. GyroMagician (talk) 08:38, 25 May

Thanks Giro, no worries at all with the cuts to transport. Thanks also for your work on radio, I'll bet it wasn't easy. I've slightly copyedited what you left. Could you please take a moment to check my latest edits to the Malvern, Worcstershire intro that is now modified to take into account the new sestion on suburbs (see also expanded rollup - areas). Now that I have got all my Malvern Civil parish stubs created, I'll be looking around the county for other stuff that needs cleaning up. Perhaps we should create a Worcestershire Project and get some templates on the talk pages - maybe talk Iccaldwell could help too. --Kudpung (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment on the Malvern, Worcestershire about the introduction (I think we should try to keep discussion there as much as possible, to include other potential editors - although it's a bit difficult when we both keep skipping around different pages!). I like the way you've put the National Anthem note back in; you're right, it should be there. I'd like to concentrate on the Malvern pages, rather than spearding to the rest of Worcs just yet. Oh, and the radio section on Worcestershire looks better now, I think that section is finished now. GyroMagician (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Project Worcestershire (pre-proposal)

Several English counties have started projects in order to clean up and apply a code of practice for layout and content of all the subs and articles about the towns and villages in their county, and to invite more contributors to complete the infoboxes, extend the information, and to add images and formal references.

According to Wiki guidelines, before a proposal for the creation of a WikiProject is made, the proposing editor should gather a minimum of 5 registered Wiki users who are in favour of the idea. The WP suggests doing this in the in a dedicated section of his/her user pages. You only need to be in favour - you do not need to be an active Wki editor/contributor. The place to add your name is: User:Kudpung/project Worcestershire. BTW: user iccaldwell found it already while I was re editing the page :)

Excellent idea, it will be useful to focus the discussion somewhere we can all find it. Three of us editing is already a good start. Where should we sign-up? I've signed both your project page and the Worcestershire talk page GyroMagician (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We got sufficient support already to make the formal proposal which is now here: WikiProject Worcestershire
While I was posting the invite template on many article and editor talk pages, I was amazed at the mess some of those other articles are (e.g. Redditch, Evesham, Bromsgrove, Kidderminster, etc.). We can be proud of what we have achieved already for the Malvern pages.--Kudpung (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Malvern Water

I recently split off the Malvern Water from Malvern and created its own expanded article, leaving a shorter mention in Malvern. It's been tagged for POV and weasel words by an editor who appears only to have read only the first sentence. He did not leave the required explanation for his action. As I'm generally extremely careful what I write, I can't see what he is complaining about. I wonder if I could impose on you to review the article, make any suggestions you think fit, and/or come out in support of it on its talk page. It certainly doesn't lack any notability, and it's well referenced. Many thanks. --Kudpung (talk) and other members are recommending reporting the matter. 02:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

At my request, the editor has now left a comment. please take a look if you find time. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left a comment left, totally unnecessary tagging. It's turning into a nice article btw, well done! GyroMagician (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately where we once thought the matter closed, it is now escalating. However, other members of the budding Worcs project have rallied in our support. On User_talk:Headbomb#Malvern_Water I've left a warning and a sharp note. --Kudpung (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts. Let's try not to get too involved, it takes effort better spent in writing pages, I'm sure he'll go away. If he doesn't, then we can escalate. What did you think of my edits? I've suggested a bit more in the way of structural changes (see the talk page). I like what you've written about the water cure, I think it looks really good. All we need now are a few pictures now. GyroMagician (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the edits are great. I've done a couple more tiny addition, and put the Queens at the end of the article. The best picture would beto buy a bottle and make a photo of it. I also think pictres of the Rose Garrard statues and some of the spouts would make nice additions. I"d make them myself to escape the copyright fuss but I won't be in Europe until end August. I've removed the silly banner and given him a piece of my mind on his talk page. I think the language he used was most inappropriate for an article talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb has escalated, see my comments at: User_talk:Headbomb#Malvern_Water and the recent additions at talk:Malvern Water. We may need a consensus before taking any further action or posting any more messages on the issue.--Kudpung (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Worcestershire

Hi Giromagician. We now have a draft project page for the official Worcestershire project. Please review it and feel free to make any changes you like without further ado or discussion.--Kudpung (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire articles

You may be interested in this.. User:Jenuk1985/Worcestershire watchlist. It is a list of every single Worcestershire related article, scraped from the Worcestershire category. I have put it in a format that can be copied and pasted into your raw watchlist. I figured it would be useful to you :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jen, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner. After the 'help' from our friend I decided to leave the Worcs project alone for a while, but I'm back now. The Worcs project has grown in my absence. Your list is certainly useful, I'll pull a few pages from it to add to my list. Thanks! GyroMagician (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, YIKES!, it's huge. I had no idea there were so many pages within the WORCS category. GyroMagician (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Malvern

Hi Giro! I've done all I can to the Malvern, Worcestershire article. I think there's a fair chance that together the regular contributors could get it nominated for GA. If you have time, please see Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Summary of recent edits, check out the article if you can, and leave any comments and suggestions there. If you see any obvious blunders, do go ahead and fix them. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung! I decided it's about time to come back to the Worcs project, having let the dust settle a bit. The Malvern page is looking really good. I've had a bit of a chop at it, and will try to do some more this w/e, but it's certainly much better than when I left. I don't think it's ready for GA yet, but it is well on the way. GyroMagician (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gyro, your edits are excellent and have done much to improve my sloppy work. In the meantime there are some other issues that need your help:
Since the recent creation of the Worcestershire project, several editors are making an concentrated effort to improve the articles and the overall coverage of the county. Many of us are learning as we go and since some of these issues regard Wikipedia and/or parent project policy and how we should interpret them, it may be a good idea to discuss them with a view to obtaining a consensus before we do things that may be wasting our time, or undoing the work of others. Please refer to these discussion items in particular:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire#DELETION - places with names...
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire#Parish list template navboxes
• Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#What should be the purpose of a navigation template? (users Brian Kenedig, Pavel Vozenilek)

and join in the debate on the Worcestershire project talk page.Thanks --Kudpung (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gyro, it's been suggested again (see Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire) that the Malvern, Worcestershire page be renamed Great Malvern and/or merged, and I admit to being hasty in in suggesting it in the first place months ago before I significantly developed the article. After all research I have done, and the rationle I have contributed both in the article and on the talk page, I strongly oppose this. Great Malvern has no official status as a place since it was merged with the former independent Malvern Link Urban District Council in 1900. Moreover, the area of Gt Malvern is cut in two by two parish wards. All official government references and sources are to either Malvern, or to Malvern Town Council. In my opinion, this leaves Gt Malvern today as just one of the many neighbourhoods with a name - just like Malvern Link or Poolbrook, for example, and as the place that just happens to include the historical town centre. I therefore strongly oppose any merging, or renaming of the Malvern, Worcestershire article, Your opinion is urgently needed, but I will of course have to abide by any consensus. Provided everything is referenced and verified, there is no case for original research, but it is an article that has been mainly created academically by contributors with first hand local knowledge, and who know where to find the information.--Kudpung (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Sometimes it seems attractive to try to put things in neat boxes, even when they don't quite fit ;-) I try to think of the first thing I would type into Wikipedia to find the page, and use that as the title. Glad you've come around to my way of thinking! GyroMagician (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I came round to your way of thinking a long time ago :) , I regret that I was a tad hasty months ago in suggesting a merge of any kind. That merge however, was to incorporate Gt Malvern into Malvern, (and not the other way round) but you see the size the Malvern article has grown to - so it's a good thing there are separate articles for Gt Malvern, the Link, and Barnards Green, etc..--Kudpung (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pershore College

Hi GyroMagician! An article within the scope of the WikiProject Worcestershire has been proposed for merging. Please see the discussion at Talk:Pershore College#Merge proposal, and leave your comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powick Hosp

Hi Gyro. Sorry about that edit conflict - I was just uploading a new version while you were copyediting the previous one.--Kudpung (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem - it's getting busy out here! I've made a few more tweaks to the page. It's a very interesting story. GyroMagician (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Evesham technology

Hi GyroMagician! It is suggested that a pre PROD, pre AfD, or pre Speedy discussion should take place before opening a deletion process for Evesham Technology. Please visit the article if you can, and leave your comments and suggestions at Talk:Evesham Technology--Kudpung (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gyro. Please don't be offended, but I have modified some of your recent edits to the intro to comply with Wikipedia:Lead_section and Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text and because they had caused a new 'noref' banner to be added by a bot. I don't think this article needs much more valuable time spending on it. It was never a priority, but as it stood, some trigger-happy would have AfD'd it sooner or later, and I thought it would be a good idea to keep it, esp. for Worcestershire, before that happened. I think that with the collaborative effort, it was a mission accomplished. I feel rather sorry for Evesham Tech (or at least for the employees) because this was a company that collapsed generally from no fault of its own, except perhaps for too rapid expansion. The same almost happened to a company I once owned when the French government just decided they couldn't afford to continue on a programme that was taking up 85% of our capacity. Fortunately, I was able to sell off all the branches as stand-alone franchises.--Kudpung (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No offence taken - it reads much better. Never hesitate to edit my edits, I am always changing yours. And no, I didn't expect the bot with the banner! It's a shame Evesham went, they made decent machines and provided very good support. They did seem to expand very rapidly for a while, I'm sure that didn't help when the Government closed the scheme. GyroMagician (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire meeting?

Worcestershire Project get-together
I'm in the UK on a rare trip to my home town in Worcestershire. If all or anyone from the project would like to meet up, please let me know. I'll be returning to Asia on 3 October.--Kudpung (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

I know you passed before, I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kilbad, thanks for the invite, but as a physicist this falls a little outside my knowledge! Good luck with the project though, it looks like you're all making fast progress. GyroMagician (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing, reply, and the power of Wikibizzo

Hi GyroMagician (talk). A slightly belated thanks is in order for your help and contribution both on the Malvern Water article and its talk page. Your attitude and help have been nothing less than excellent. I have already utilised the template you created for the new ref structure, in three articles (Water cure (torture), Hydrotherapy, & James Currie} which is easier and more efficient than opening up an editing page of an article with the style, and copying the relevant bits, one at at time, into the article being worked on.

Thanks too for your feedback on the Hansard template. I guess it's Parliamentary privilege of a sort - it gets it's own template. And I see you swiftly tamed the recalcitrant Hansard ref with the power of Wikibizzo, ("the all-new wonder-fix!"). I agree there's some quite neat stuff in this Wikibizzo. One might be tempted to add to the two-line poem, which I guess we could call The Wikibizzo Compliance poem, or perhaps just The Hansard (with apologies to Edgar Allan Whatsisname).

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I edited, weak and weary,

Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,

While I plodded, keyboard tapping, Hansard caught me, nearly napping

As with energy still sapping, applying Wikibizzo cure.

"'Tis but text", so I muttered, "Comply with Wikibizzo sure?"

Quoth the Hansard "Nevermore"

But setting forth with no more to show,

GyroMagician tried Wikibizzo.

Hansard verily complied.

And all recalcitrance, it died.

Need more Wikibizzo-cure?

Quoth the Hansard "Nevermore" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotnow (talk • contribs) 07:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Malvern Water

Hi Gyro, thanks for all your recent input on the Malvern Water article. I was given a personal VIP tour of the bottilng plant in Colwall while I was in the UK in September and took a lot of photos, but since returning to Thailand I have been so busy I haven't had time to update the article.--Kudpung (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, Long-time-no-see! Hope you enjoyed being back in Blighty. Yes, the Malvern Water article is developing nicely. I guess you saw the exchange between me and Jeremy on the talk page. I completely misunderstood the meaning of the 'advertising' tag, as I think I did when Headbomb first tagged the page. Having realised the tag was about the tone of the article, rather than about Schweppes, I took a knife to it and reworded. I'm planning to try to expand the history section a little, but the rest is pretty complete. Your tour of the bottling plant sounds like fun! Did you find any extra info while you were there? I'm currently chasing the early history - I've seen a first-bottling date of 1622, but don't have a reliable ref yet. GyroMagician (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

MRI Hardware

Hi, I saw that you had worked on a MRI hardware article in your user page. It looks good. I would be interested in working on it.. so if you give me permission I will try to finish it up? (or was it a personal project, in that case would you be ok with me copying it?) Thanks --The.Filsouf (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Filsouf, well spotted. You can see by the edit date I haven't touched it for a while! My original plan was to split out a hardware page from the current MRI article, which is already a bit long. I have most of the text in my PhD thesis (http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/740/1/magill_thesis.pdf), but it needs some fairly heavy reshaping to be better suited to a wikipedia page. Please use what I have - it would be far better to get it into the main wikipedia page than gathering dust here. I'm not sure how best to proceed - either copy the page to your own space, or fit it straight into a main wiki page, or edit it here - whichever you prefer. If you start developing the page I'll try to join in, although I'm usually a bit short on time. I look forward to seeing what you write :-) GyroMagician (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to say explicitly - you have my permission to copy anything you want from my thesis for the wikipedia page - if it's useful ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of SINAD

Hello GyroMagician. I left a message on Talk:Signal, noise and distortion in response to the renaming. I don't agree that "No abbrevations" applies here. Please take a look at my note there and let me know what you think. Thanks! Me Three (talk to me) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Malvern

Hi Gyro, this is just to let you know that I have nominated Malvern, Worcestershire for reviewing for GA, and thanks for your recent vigilance against vandalism. --Kudpung (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi KP, yes I noticed it had been nominated. Have you had any feedback yet? I've started trying to tidy up the references a bit - this was something Jeremy highlighted on the Malvern Water page, so it would probably come up here as well. Re: the recent vandalism - at least it was a bit more creative than the usual ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Oatcakes

No, I took it straight off the walkers box. It was meant as a quote, though I doubt that it is still formatted that way. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 11:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - and thanks for the quick reply! It's funny how this "many eyes" thing works. GyroMagician (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Malvern, GA nomination

Hi Gyro ! We now have a first review for GA. On the whole it doesn't look too bad. As you know, like you, I am a local resident in absentia, and as a published author, a 'prose artist', but anything you can do to improve the language or address some of the more technical points as quickly as possible would be much appreciated. Any work on the new referencing system does not affect the overall quality and scope of the article for GA but you may be able to put some of the wrong referencing things right and offer some suggestions on the other points made by the reviewer. It would be great for the Worcs project (and great for us Malvernians) to have a GA of this envergure in its repertoire. See Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#GA Review - and Happy New Year!--Kudpung (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, and Happy New Year to you too! You've been busy - I see you've already made most of the suggested changes. I'll have a look over the article tomorrow and see what I can do. I started today, but was rather distracted by the Theatre of Small Convenience instead - such is Wikipedia. The referencing is still an ongoing project, but we're getting closer. I thought the comments were very helpful - with this kind of help I think we should get to GA fairly quickly. GyroMagician (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gyro. I do not doubt that the new referencing system will be of benefit to readers of the encyclopedia. However, I'm a bit thrown by the use of templates - I always found it easier to insert inline references manually. I therefore can't figure out what to do with the five (!) references for one of the items. I know which ones to keep, but don't knowhow to delete the others. Generally, we have seven days to address a reviewer's points before the GA nomination is failed. Ah, the Theatre of Small Conveniece - I must have walked past it a dozen times in Edith Walk when I was in the UK in August!--Kudpung (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we've all had a go at the recommended improvements for GA. Would someone care to have a final proof read please? See comments on Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/GA1

Malvern references

Hi Gyro, while the work you guys are doing on the references is excellent, I would just like to point out the following:
How to format citations: While you should try to format a citation correctly, what matters is that you add your source; provide enough information to identify the source, and others will improve the formatting if needed.

How to present citations: Each article should use the same method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus before changing it.

This means that the high number of refs must be consistent - quite a mammoth task! I have added lots of new refs in the last day or two, but I don't know how to use your system (yet), as I am more concerned with supplying refs that are required by the GA reviewer.--Kudpung (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have now addressed all the points that the reviewer has raised. I've hacked some stuff out that Peterkingiron pointed out, but IHMO the effort now is to pass GA and not to find more fault. if you could just do a rapid proof read and do some fixes to the reference templates that you and Wotnow are doing, that would be great.--Kudpung (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Housing: It will probably be difficult to find a reference for the Ministry housing estates although they physically exist so a reference may not be necessary. By 1952-3 the ministry estates accounted for over half the public housing stock, particularly the Cockshot Rd-Davenham Close-Sling Lane-Clerkenwell Crescent development, the houses along Pickersleigh Rd, those ones around North Site, and isolated pockets such as Werstan Close. I spent my early childhood in one - but that's original research !--Kudpung (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, I grew up in Werstan! Agreed it will be difficult to find a ref (not sure who tagged it), but given the proportion of Ministry housing in Malvern, there must be something. There is quite a lot of repetition of the TRE part in the article - I count three entries (lede, housing, industry) - it seems a bit overdone, but I'm not sure how to reduce it. For the citations, I think I now agree with WotNow that the Malvern Water style referencing a better choice, mainly because it is simple to use (Do you have any thoughts?). We'll keep working on it. In the mean time, please carry on adding refs however is easiest for you, and we'll work out the details. Once we settle on a style, I will add a note at the top of the talk page describing how to do it. GyroMagician (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Don't worry about the perceived duplication - readers often scvan and go straight to a section they need. malvern is quite a long article.--Kudpung (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think we have reached the point where all the reviewer's original pints have been addressed. Apart from proof reading and correcting any glaring errors, let's try to achiev GA with the article as is. See the revierwers latest comment at Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1#Next_set_of_comments. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi KP. We need to finish putting all refs into cite format, with publisher, as per DBs comment. It's nearly done - I should be able to finish it tonight, if WotNow doesn't get there first. Apart from that I'll stop editing. GyroMagician (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gyro :)--Kudpung (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now added yet another a bunch of new references. It's taken me all day to find them, but it would be great if you could put them into your special system. I was right about Hembry, simply because I read the book.  ;).

I've removed a bunch of superfluous refs, but now there are a lot of red warnings shown on the page. I sure don't know how to fix that - usually when I remove an inline ref, it's gone. Can somebody do a quick fix please.--Kudpung (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A splendid effort all round. And ya gotta love those editing conflicts when two editors are trying to save at the same time! I re-added the Hembry, Cowie & Cowie (HCC) ref for the Malvern Link merge, as it's central to the sentence, as a reader who checks it can readily see. The Hansard ref is useful and complimentary, so I'd leave it. I concur one can overdo ref clusters. But occasional complimentary clusters can also add to an article, as I think in this case. Moreover, we can never know who'll check and find themselves a whole new information world to check out and contribute back to Wikipedia from. I've had many such serendipitous finds.

I also see GyroMagician that you added the url from the duplicate HCC ref. I realised that I was formatting a duplicate ref, but by then I was jaded and the resolution wasn't readily evident so I left it, as it wouldn't hurt a GA. But with a fresh perspective I've sorted it. That by the way, is one advantage of listing the references in one place. One can far more readily spot duplications and errors, whether or not you're looking for them. Even if you look at the Shakespeare article you'll see the exercise enabled me to spot an error (McMichael & Glenn - line 199) which I was neither aware of or looking for. I was simply trying an experiment to combine two styles while creating a benefit to the article I was experimenting in.

Of course I see Kudpung's point, as I'm sure you do Gyro. That is, there is a trade-off between the gain from ever-more complex uses of Wikibizzos, and losses entailed therein. Our experiment with the Shakespeare-style highlighted that, and I think we've hit on just about as good a compromise as one can get. After all, it will list a reference regardless of whether it is in placed in the body of the article in simple or template format, or grouped in the reference section. So it's as useful as necessary, but robust to different styles.Wotnow (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Hey Wotnow. Yes, I see Kudpung's point. I must admit it made me smile, because I often have the same reaction, when somebody changes something that I know perfectly well how to use, so I have to learn something new. But I'm sure he and other editors will come around to it. I'm sold already - it makes spotting duplicates so much easier, and I think makes the whole article more maintainable. And yes, the Shakespeare-style refs was an education in over-doing things. I must admit I thought there were more refs to different pages of the same book in the article - but I couldn't really see, because the refs were mixed in with the main text.

The ref pruning has also gone well, I think. We had all got a bit carried away. There were (and still are) some fantastic sources used in the article, but I like to try to keep focussed. Often, where lots of refs are given, it turns out that only one or two actually say what the ref implies, the others just feel kind-of relevant. But the HCC ref seems to make sense (although I do wonder about the Hansard). Anyway, I think it's time to hand-off to Dana boomer and see what she thinks. No doubt we have a few more fixing cycles to go though before we're done. Oh yes, I nearly forgot - those edit conflicts - never fail to make me cry out Nnnggggg! Funny how the simple edits never conflict... GyroMagician (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern water

I was going to go to bed, but because of all the talk about the referencing on the Malvern water page, I thought I'd have a quick peak to see if I could understand more about the system. I have to chime in here after a long absence from this article that I split off and created from the Malvern, Worcestershire article, to wonder why it attracts some much flak and arrogance from across the Atlantic. First, one self appointed unofficial admin buts in after admitting he didn't even read the article before tagging it, then tries to explain his action with much stumbling and blurb, and even going disingenuously to ANI to cover his blundering, and now we seem to have new, rather disagreable comments again from those who, it would appear, claim to know more about the UK's culture, history, and products than the natives. Rather than offering constructive help and encouragement, they are filling the article talk pages with the kind of comments that will utterly prevent the article from ever getting past a GA reviewer's keyboard. Furthermore, there are a lot of mature, experienced, and very highly qualified contributors to the encyclopedia, who have already given up editing because of such action by wannabe admins. It's a disaster, because these are the editors the Wikipedia really wants. Who asked for this article to be so rudely pulled apart in the first place? I took the trouble to check out several of Jeremy's references to MOS, etc., and find that some of his comments, tagging, and edits are clearly based on his own arbitrary interpretations on how the encyclopedia should be written. Let us not be intimidated by such action and launch ourselves into unnecessary work. My suggestion is that if one doesn't have any knowledge of a country, it's culture, or its products, or worse, no knowledge of the subject matter, and worse still, little understanding of the MOS, then one should have the courtesy to leave the article alone.
There are dozens of articles about brands of bottled mineral water, that according to Jeremy's criteria would far closer to 'blatant advertising' and AfD than our Malvern water article. I suggest we decategorise this article from food and drink, and remove the food and drink project banner from it.--Kudpung (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is the wrong time to make the observation, but assessment is always somewhat arbitrary, flavoured with a personal bias. The key for me was realising that the advertising tag was being applied as a comment on style, rather than accusing us of advertising a product. Once I worked that out, and Jeremy and I stopped butting heads, he made some useful suggestions. I think the article is better for it. Maybe the interaction with Headbomb would have gone differently if I had understood the tagging earlier - although in that case he seemed to want to apply all tags and just shout and stamp about a bit. But yes, I don't understand why MW attracts so much negative attention. There are many bad water articles out there - but I think ours is looking rather good. GyroMagician (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Malvern Water cure

For what it's worth, I concur that the Malvern Water article benefitted from the exercise. To me, the best indicator that (User:Jerem43 was acting in good faith on 12 November 2009, with the Talk:Malvern Water#Advertising tag was that it was Jerem43 who removed it following Gyro's efforts. I came to that article late, so wasn't caught up in the earlier argy-bargy (so to speak). But I see that since the efforts surrounding that period, both the article and its discussion page have settled down completely.

There certainly was quite a bit of reference to the Malvern Water article in our discussions. Mostly this was to contrast two referencing styles and layouts. One 'exemplified' by Malvern Water, and one 'exemplified' by Shakespeare. Mind you, the William Penn article might benefit from the latter style (but not necessarily). I counted 74 individual page citations for Hans Fantel's 1974 book - nearly double that of Schoenbaum (1987) in Shakespeare.

The above discussions highlight another thing which the Malvern Water article exemplifies. How one can sometimes find the solution in the problem. The problem being the criticism, and the solution in this case being to take it in good faith, and see what transpires - in this case an improvement. Of course, this might not always be the outcome. But assuming criticism as being in good faith generally raises the chances of a favourable outcome. Not everyone knows how to constructively criticise - we typically learn that through experience, if we're lucky (in my own life, I'd have handled many past situations differently in light of what I now know). And by acting as if the criticism or editing changes are in good faith, if perchance they are maliciously based, that will become so self-evident that it's impossible for any reasonable person to miss. Even then, what may have started out as malicious may resolve favourably if the other editor gets a kind response. A funny old world indeed, what with that and the irony that the Malvern Water cure still seems to be working its magic! Wotnow (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Reference templates for the Chienlit innovation

Hi GyroMagician. For ease of reference, here is my reply to (Kudpung) regarding the question of a link to referencing templates for the style we've been implementing.

The only templates that I am currently aware of are those created by GyroMagician at GyroMagician's neat trick on Malvern Water discussion page, and more recently GyroMagician's 'Howto' on Malvern discussion page, both of which have been copied by me at User:Wotnow. You'll see from my own userpage, and my comments on Malvern Water discussion page and elsewhere, that I credit my awareness of this referencing style to User:Chienlit's implementation in the Vincent Priessnitz article on 15 November 2009, after which I tried it myself. Whether Chienlit picked up elsewhere or worked it out I don't know. I see the earliest contribution from Chienlit using the {{r|"Ref Name"}} template was on 17 October 2009, in the Hubert Latham article.

But I see the {{reflist|2|refs= ... }} template was added to the Hubert Latham article by User:Autodidactyl on 14 October 2009. Where that editor got it from I don't know. At this stage, it looks a bit like an innovation that's been quietly evolving behind the scenes. For further description of my own current method of implementing the style, see my additional blurb at Reference templates for the Chienlit innovation, which is the name I've given it for now, pending evidence of the innovation being creditable to someone else.Wotnow (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Some hopefully helpful information

Hi GyroMagician. I have added a section to my user page, in which I provide what I hope are Illustrative examples of co-existing referencing styles in the process of editorial problem-solving. I hope it is of some help. As always, it was at least a useful learning exercise for me, as is usually the case when trying to formalise one's own learning into a way that hopefully makes some sense to others. (This is going to look like I have a stutter) Wotnow (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow Wotnow (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Useful. You're right, it's worth emphasising that all ref styles work together happily. It's also helpful to see all three next to each other. I'm (trying to) hold back from converting more articles, until I see the two we now have in the Worcs project working - I'm hoping to see someone who isn't you or me add a new ref in the new style. Then I'll go ahead and start changing them all! I'll put the kettle on ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. At the risk of overdoing it, I've elaborated further and created a section where I can list some representative examples of the different styles. In my search at the time, I didn't find any article using Harvard templates exclusively, although I'm sure they're there. You'll see that I added a Featured Article in the list of 'embedded freehand' referencing styles. That was deliberate. It acknowledges that an article can do very well without more sophisticated referencing templates (the 'simple freehand' still having template spans after all), and is an important counterpoint on a page that might otherwise seem like ideological proselytising (which is not intended - it's intended as a cogent, illustrative argument and that's all).

I doubt there will be a major uptake anytime soon. And I don't know that it matters if there isn't. I think the main thing is that the information is there for people if they can capitalise on it. And that if other editors don't themselves feel inclined to use it, they at least don't feel the need to over-react if another editor in uses it for their own additions in the same article, the Wiki markup being behind the scenes after all, like the hidden text I see in some articles used as proxy chat-rooms. And I'm not taking an indirect shot at anyone in the Malvern project by the way. That whole process involved healthy skepticism and constructive progress all the way. An exercise in teamwork as Kudpung noted, and a healthy one at that.

So with the Chienlit innovation, I think that if one or two individuals implement it in an article, then:

• (a) other editors should not feel compelled to use it, as
• (b) it will sit easily with their own style, but
• (c) it's a tool for them to use if it benefits them, and
• (d) there is information on the innovation for them to consider if they want, so
• (e) they should at the very least not feel threatened by others using it, nor
• (f) compelled to prevent or sanction others from utilising it given that
• (g) it will do no harm and
• (h) contains a potential good that can be capitalised upon at any time in the future.

And if that outcome is the best we can do, that's okay. The people who will utilise on it are likely to be people not even on our radar screen, like us from Chienlit's quiet implementation. Where you and I have pioneered Gyro, is in trying to get our heads around it and formalise our thoughts for us and others. And that can be good enough in itself. Wotnow (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Origin of List-defined references

Hi GyroMagician. You may like to know that having fleshed out the issues as best I could on my user page, I then took the next logical step, of acknowledging Chienlit and awaiting a response regarding any earlier history that I hadn't found. It turns out that Chienlit picked up the idea from User:Maedin, who was also kind enough to provide further information. It transpires that its implementation was advertised on 21 September 2009, in the Wikipedia Signpost. The Signpost links show the innovation traces back to July 2009, when there was extensive discussion and a straw poll, resulting in strong support for the innovation, and subsequent implementation by User:Dragons flight. There is also a Help page explaining List-defined references.

I have of course updated my user page to reflect all this, and to provide all the relevant links to the topic in one place. The exercise leading up to this, by myself and you, was far from fruitless. We independently arrived at the same conclusions as those whose efforts led to the implementation, and our elaborations are a good supplement. Of course, some of the reservations that Kudpung expressed are to be found in the July discussion. But the overall conclusion was the same. It is optional for indidual editors, and works with other styles, so doesn't interfere anyway. But of course, that is no longer just the conclusion of you and me (I never thought it was anyway, it just seemed we were elaborating the unelaborated). A number of others got there first. Wotnow (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Worcs project

Hi Gyro. After having spent hours (days) creating all those project pages, I must admit that keeping them up to date is something I tend to forget. I had always hoped that other project members would help out there. If you see anything that has been done, dont hesitate to put a {{done}} tag against them. Likewise, do go ahead and add things to the 'to do' lists - I always watch those pages and will see if there is any movement.--Kudpung (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I kind of forgot about the Worcs page - somehow I forgot to 'watch' it. It's on my list now, and I'll try to participate a bit more. GyroMagician (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern

Hi, I've tried to change some refs and ended up with those horrible red warnings again - can't locate the real refs to delete...--Kudpung (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed them. When you see a red warning message saying something like:

<ref> tag with name "Organbuilding" defined in <references> is not used in prior text.

it means there is a reference in the list at the bottom of the page that isn't used in the article body. To make the error go away you need to edit the reference list, find the reference named "Organbuilding" (the one that starts <ref name=Organbuilding>), and simply delete it. The ref list is (well, should be) in alphabetical order to make refs faster to find. GyroMagician (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern Hills

You're right about the article needing a lot more work. I've added a list of possible sources to the talk page at Talk:Malvern Hills from my personal notes for working on Malvern related articles, but I haven't got a lot of time at the moment to do much with them - I have to make up for the time I lost at work while we were trying to get Malvern to GA. --Kudpung (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, wow, that's a lot of references! There's some good stuff in there too, thanks. I'll see what I can do with the Hills article - it will be a lot slower than Malvern, but I'll add bits and pieces as I find time.

I've tried to have a last hack at Malvern. I've stared at the article so much I can't really see it any more (I guess you have the same problem). I think we've addressed all but two of Dana boomer's points, so we're nearly there. I've left a note on the talk page about the opening paragraph - I'm interested to know what you think. GyroMagician (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gyro. Thanks for all your further edits to Malvern, particularly the ref that states that QinetiQ is the largest employer! Some of the content of the Malvern article, especially the intro, were deliberately written as a workaround to avoid a heated argument, to the rather strong comments of just one user who asserted that Malvern is neither a place nor a civil parish, nor a town, at all, and the beginnings of an edit war were brewing. It's no pleasure to me to get involved in heated argumentsand/or edit wars in this encyclopedia, and that particuar contributor, although extremely competent in the use of editing tools, has an extraordinary history of conflict, often bordering on WP:CIVIL. Because of totally unjustified run-ins with some people, particularly those wannabe admins who do fly-past tagging, I have come very close last year to retiring completely from Wikipedia in spite of all the work I put into creating the Worcs project, stimulating participation, and micromanaging it.
Maybe we can satisfy everyone's expectations and give ourselves a pat on the back if we get GA for Malvern. The bigger an article is, the more difficult it is to pass all the requirements (I know of articles that are little longer than stub size that have got GA).
What we need to do now is to stop all editing to Malvern as requested by the reviewer, to give her a chance to complete her mission. IMHO, at this stage we should be looking at reasons to help it pass rather than introduce more possible grounds for failure, or more work that this not required for GA, but that will have to comply if changes are made now. According to her most recent statement today, the article is now very, very close to passing.
If the Malvern article passes, we will have a benchmark for work on other major articles in the Worcestershire project such as (Worcestershire, Worcester, Redditch, Bromsgrove, Evesham, Kidderminster, Pershore, etc.) some of which are really in a catastrophic state and desperately need attention.
The Malvern Hills article is actually not in bad shape, but could certainly do with a lot of expansion.
I will be in the UK in my home town of Malvern again in April (I live in Asia) and I will be using much of the time to scour the county for archives, records, and photos,for other Worcs articles as I did for Malvern last September. In this context, if you would like to make a 'shopping list' I would be happy to drive round the county, get meetings again with mayors, town clerks, councillors, and local historians, and check out the libraries and the WRO.--Kudpung (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Chance glass

Hi Gyro, there was not really any need to delete the mention of pioneering glasswork at Malvern because In 1948 the Malvern plant produced the world's first interchangeable syringe.They also continued developing TV tube manufacturiing solutions from the Malvern plant, that they licenced to the mass producers in the television industry. New technologies for radio tubes (valves) was also constantly in demand from nearby RRE. There is a lot more to the story too, but when, the official biographer of Chance and I got together to polish up this article, we felt that less is more, and rather than plagiarise his own book and leave ourselves open to COI and POV, we left most of the really interesting stuff out.--Kudpung (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now that's new to me, I only found out about the earlier Smethwick work. It sounds like we need a ref to the biography - I didn't find much detail on the Chance website. I deleted pioneering because it wasn't really backed up by that ref. The Chance Brothers website could also do with that ref. (I'm sure the biographer won't mind the publicity!) GyroMagician (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the GA reviewer actually queried it anyway. IO think we(d best leave the article alone now until she's finished with it. Another reviewer has since chimed in because of the kafruffle and we might risk losing the pass mark by messing about with it much more, and we were so close this morning.--Kudpung (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But it was incorrect, query or not. I was trying to address the Especially as this article is already rather long comment. I think we could still manage a little more there. How long does the GA review stay open? I understood from Dana boomers 'Final Comments' that the review was over - I think I've misunderstood. GyroMagician (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If the review was over, she would have published her verdict. I think Dona has given up with us and passed it on to another reviewer who has now chimed in, possibly because we kept interfering by changing things she wasn't worried about and had already asked us a couple of times to stop editing while she finished. She asked us to change two specific points which I then did, and I had already addressed the article length issue this morning. I would really suggest now to leave things alone and see what happens, because we were so close a couple of times, and no successful GA reviews usually drag out this long. I mean, if you're concerned about the length, you could cut the whole article down to two paragraphs like THIS and get GA for it. At the moment, it looks as if we are trying to rehash things we thrashed out eight months ago and were satisified with. The point I made on the review page this moring (last night to you) was that it's not that the article is too long and needs slimming down at all cost, but rather that there is still a heck of lot that could have ben included, but was deliberately left out so that the article doesn't get any longer. Thing is, h and very strict, but she may not understand how important Malvern is, and why so much effort has gone into it. I guess I'd be the same if I were to review article about some small town in the US I'd never heard of. I would be ashamed to be doing what some editors are doing by getting their pals to review their articles for them.--Kudpung (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've talked me round. I think between us we've addressed the highlighted issues. I'll stop editing until we hear back from the review. I still think we could cut some - obviously not cutting out large paragraphs, but trimming here and there - but I guess there are more pressing things to do elsewhere in Worcs. Let's see what comes back. GyroMagician (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern GA, failing...

Hi Gyro,I know you guys have gone to a lot of trouble over this new referencing system, but it probably came at the wrong moment after the article had already been submitted for GA. It's now created a bit of a muddle and is seriously interfering with the reviewer's efforts to get the article GA'd before the time limit runs out and has to be failed. It would be great if you could do everything possible to sort these multiple issues out as quickly as possible - I'm afraid that I am completely useless and unable to help with it. See: Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1#Final comments. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gyro. You may have seen my comments elsewhere, but as a courtesy, I add this bit.

When fixing the last lot of refs (#90, 91, 92), I recalled how it came about that we had templates with "citation", and "cite xyz". When trying to implement templates for the Harvard style, I found that when placing citations in the bibliography section, those with "cite xyz" didn't work. I looked at a couple of articles utilising the Harvard-style templates, and saw that they used "citation". On the offchance that this would fix the problem, I changed the recalcitrant refs, and they worked (see e.g. this version at beginning of changeover, and this version just prior to reversion from Harvard to Malvern Water style.

When we reverted back to the previous referencing layout, having given the Harvard layout a good shot to see how it would fare, those citation changes didn't cause any ill effects, so remained. I think I see something of where you are coming from. There wasn't any history of edit warring etc, and the article was stable and looked ready to roll, but then she notices these changes going on. If I were her, I'd feel remiss not to comment, and I acknowledge that.

I guess the crux of the point I would try to make is that we initially went down a 'wrong road', recognised it just in time, and despite it all, we seemed to pull it off, with the refs reading as refs should, bar ordinary bits to fix, like missing publishers. I'd have spotted that, along with the double up of the Tony Freer-Minshull (2007) listing in 'Further reading', which is now fixed. But perhaps all is not lost yet. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's clear this up. There were TWO major changes made to the referencing style. The first was to convert to the {{cite something}} style. This (or citation) is a requirement of many GA reviewers, although apparently not ours. Cite template are fairly easy to use (copy and paste from here and fill in the details), but look a bit different to the old-style refs. They are a good thing because they encourage editors to add more detail to their refs in a more consistent manner. They are used on a vast number of Wikipedia articles. Cite and citation templates can be mixed at will, although it is clearer for everybody not to.

The second change was to move the refs to the end of the article, and cite them using {{r|something}}. This is more experimental, but I think helpful. To ease the transition, I wrote some instructions to explain how to use them, although I am still keeping an eye on the article and reformatting old-style refs as needed. In practice the larger part of this has been converting old style [] refs to cite-style refs. If, after some undefined period, the {{r|something}} style refs appear not to be useful/working/maintainable, I will revert to putting them back in the text, but I have no plans to revert to [] style refs - these are plain bad.

Now, let's get a hold of ourselves. There is no serious problem. Dana's comments were addressed in a couple of edits. If we pass or fail on the basis of a couple of citation/cite discrepancies, it would be an odd review. However, I do not see how complaining about this in the GA review comments is helpful. It begins to looks like an edit war. GyroMagician (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershierre, Warwickshierre, Yorkshierre, and Everyshierre

Hello GyroMagician! A non-British user seems to be attempting to suggest that the Brits are not pronouncing their own British place names correctly, and appears to believe that it is a policy of Wikipedia to instruct the Brits, through the use of the IPA, how British English should be pronounced. He/she also seems to be of the opinion that it is Wikipedia policy to regard British English by default as a rhotic language, which it is not. Some British Wikipedians are trying to avoid an edit conflict and have requested my support. I have added my comments to the debate the non-British user has has started in defence of his/her multiple, WP:BOLD? changes to IPA pronunciations of British place names. As a professional linguist I accord every version of English its own particular merits and my position here strictly concerns the way in which the IPA is interpreted and applied in the Wikipedia, and how the current policy may need to be changed through a truly representative consensus. If you would like to help resolve this issue, please see User talk:Kudpung#IPA, RP, etc. and User talk:Lfh#Warwickshire to get the background. Maybe you could then chime in with your views on the subject at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Rhoticity in place names. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're far more qualified than I to clear this one up (and I see you're doing a solid job of it!) but I've stuck my ore in anyway. It does seem strange to argue that IPA is not phonetically accurate! If you win this one, which clearly you should, we'll have to go through a lot of English place names, the standard appear to include the unfortunate "r" GyroMagician (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!

You are now the proud owner of this badge - wear it with pride :) --Kudpung (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You thought we'd never get there for a moment ;-) Well done - as our unofficial leader you should celebrate the Worcestershire project getting its first GA! GyroMagician (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with both of you. It's been a privilege to be involved, and of course thanks goes to Dana for bearing with us, and a thanks all round to all who contributed. I particularly liked your "get a grip" comments Gyro. I can see a the makings of a screenplay here... Wotnow (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So much damage can be done in the last minute rush at the end...But we didn't, and the hard work paid off. It's been good fun. I've just added an auto-box showing the current state of Worcs articles, so we can see a bit more clearly what needs doing (there is plenty). On another topic, the place name pronunciation discussion has opened a hornets nest! We've gone from a disagreement about one page to arguing Wikipedia policy. Which appears to need changing. Wotnow, I did like your the better we understand a phenomenon or problem, the more likely it is to be oversimplified commnet. I shall be quoting that to my students. GyroMagician (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, John D. Barrow's 'Groucho Marx effect'. I was put onto his book World Within a World by a physics lecturer (who also put me onto the papers I cite in Andrew Pickering), who organised an elective interdisciplinary philosophy of science course. Part of the objective of the course was to get students thinking about thinking. One guest lecturer, a "card carrying philosopher of science" has tried often over the years to point out the difference between "fill the bottle" forms of education, where scientists, and students in general, are essentially turned into fact-filled technicians rather than heuristic problem-solvers.

For my money, the crux of the latter boils down to something a tutor said years ago to a room full of students anxious about just how much they were expected to memorise from various references, one of them a massive tome. The tutor's comment: "you don't have to remember this stuff. You only have to know where to find it, and how to think about it when you find it". That's one of the single best pieces of advice I've ever had. Same theme as the "card carrying philosopher", from a different angle. Of course it helps to remember things, especially for things like exams. But being able to rattle off facts is not the same as being able to think with them, either as an individual or a discipline. In Nigel Barley's book The Innocent Anthropologist, he says "anthropology is not short of facts but simply anything intelligent to do with them". Of course, we're in trouble if our memory fails to allow us to work on a problem long enough to solve it, like Jimmie, the subject of Oliver Sacks' essay 'The Lost Mariner' in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. But with an otherwise good memory, a pertinent education foundation, and reasonably reliable heuristics, one can always work out something given useful facts.

Sandra Boynton's Linguistic solutions for international chocolate searching

If you'll forgive me dribbling on a bit, perhaps the last word on pronounciation should go to Sandra Boynton, from her book Chocolate: The Consuming Passion (pp.104-105). Here, she gives vital linguistic advice for travellers on "the quickest and most reliable way to find chocolate", via the phrase "Excuse me, where is the nearest chocolate?" For example:

• France, Belgium, Switzerland: "Excusez-moi, où est le chocolat le plus proche?".

Pronounced: Ex-COOZ-ay-mwah, oo ay l'sho-cÕ-LAH l'ploo prÕsh?

• Germany, Austria, Switzerland: "Entschuldigen Sie bitte, wo ist die nächste Schokolade?"

Pronounced: Ent-SHOOL-dee-gen 'zee BIT-tuh, vÕ ist dee NEX-tuh shÕ-cÕ-LAR-duh?

• United States: "Hey you, where can a guy get some chocolate around here"

Pronounced: Hay-OO, oo-AYRR kin uh GAH-ee git sum CHOCK-lit uh-ROW-und HEE-err?

Pardon the Õ. I couldn't find how to produce an 'o' with a dash - on top, so I copied and pasted the nearest looking thing. Wotnow (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

IPA

I've just added another chunk to that IPA discussion at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Rhoticity in place names I think it's got totally out of hand with some people missing the point entirely, and chucking bits in just for the sake of having something to say. I've since had a look at what Wikipedia has to say about the IPA, and I must admit, it's not the way I would explain it or use it with my students. It certainly needs clarifying and it's easy to see how Lfh got mislead into thinking and doing what he did. --Kudpung (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling the policy and description has been put together by people...less familiar with IPA. I also don't really know enough, but it would be good if you, and some other Wikipedians with similar expertise, could sort this out and lay down some sensible guidelines. Is there some sort of linguists message board where you could appeal for comment? GyroMagician (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, except for an article or two on electronic semantic searching, and language analysis software, I have rarely got involved with anything on WP that concerns my work. Most of what I write here is about Worcestershire, wine, and Thailand. I suppose it's because WP is a distraction from professional life, a kinda hobby. I have obviously spent a lot of time teaching the IPA, but I done't really want to lecture about it here, because of the polemic - as you have recocognised - it might engender, and there are a lot of wannabe academics and self-appointed admins (à la Headbomb) lurking in the sidelines. The problem with the IPA symbol chart shown on the WP, is that although it states that it 'covers' American, British, Australian English etc, there are no side notes in it to show which of those dialects the Roman script examples refer to. Which is quite absurd and unhelpful, and was obviously the catalyst to Lfm's dilemma. I'll see what I can do, but it won't be for now.--Kudpung (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wotnow said: In Nigel Barley's book The Innocent Anthropologist, he says "anthropology is not short of facts but simply anything intelligent to do with them". Of course, we're in trouble if our memory fails to allow us to work on a problem long enough to solve it, - and that is precisely where some of the many authors of the IPA articles have got their collective knickers in a twist. --Kudpung (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hi Gyro, I just though I'd let you know that we may have been submitted to a GA review that insisted on a quality that might actually have gone beyond the GA criteria. This for example from the GA guideline page: Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
There is definitely no insistence that the referencing system follows any pattern at all, and even ugly bare URLs are allowed, while retrieved dates, book citations, publishers, are not required. Not that I'm complaining because the experience has set the standard for my own work that was probably never far off the mark anyway. But it's food for thought if ever we review anyone's articles.--Kudpung (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You may find my subsequent comment of interest, not least for educational reasons. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And my answer to it  :) --Kudpung (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire articles

Whilst we don't of course lay claims to ownership of any articles, we should beware of pettyfogging intimidation by 'recent changes' patrollers, particlulary in the case of articles that have passed an especially arduous GA review. BTW: Some reviews are much less arduous; in fact, some get through because there are reviewers who scour the GA nominations for articles where they have subject knowledge (COI?), and then breeze in, do all or most of the improvements themselves, pass the article, and take all the credit.--Kudpung (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, use all you like from my user page - I cribbed the basic layout from someone else anyway. I'm not taking a Wikibreak, but I'm soft pedaling a bit, just checking my watchlist every day. I need to relax away from pettyfogging interference of the kind that gets me riled. The Welsh article turned out to be one of those "don't touch our article even if you're doing a grand job cleaning our mess up for us" jobs, so I turned round and walked out of it. They'll get their GA because the reviewer did most of the work for them. BTW: do you have any idea why Nev1 threw his admin toys out of his pram? Shame really - a model of how admins really should be. I'm planning on being in the UK throughout April to take in my dad's 90th birthday, it would be great if you could get across, peterkingiron and iccaldwell have expressed interest in meeting up. I will have to go France for a meeting with my publisher and see my grandchildren, and I'll probably go down to Avignon and do some research for the Wiki wine articles.--Kudpung (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I wondered if you might be taking a break. Pettyfogging is a good word for it (and a good word in it's own right). It's funny how those battles seem important here, when they're really not. MH looked like an argument (discussion, I mean) that I wanted to stay out of. They were lucky to find a reviewer prepared to do so much work. I've been doing a bit of tweaking here and there, general tidying up without doing anything too big. I've just made the Ambridge merger you suggested - it feels a little like enjoying a cigarette in a fireworks factory - but I'm not really an Archers fan, so I can step aside if it get a little warm ;-) I'll try and tidy up the WP:Worcs home page next - I think it needs a bit more structure, but I'm not sure what structure yet. We should try to work out a (very) shortlist of priority articles needing work, to try and keep folks focussed. Anyway, let's save that for a bit. Enjoy your break, remember that none of this is really important, and let me know when you're back.

Oh yes, I forgot - I've no idea what happened with Nev1, I didn't realise there was a problem. What happened? I've not interacted with him too much, but he's always been an excellent editor when I have. GyroMagician (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Look what I made in school:

Hopefully followed by

Nice :) --Kudpung (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Evesham Technology

Hi Gyro, remember this? Evesham Technology. Several of us had a good go at rescuing it and turning it into quite a reasonable article. It was another example of how our teamwork works, and I'm half inclined to suggest that it might pass a GA review. Thoughts? --Kudpung (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, sorry, I completely forgot to reply to this. Yes, I remember it, I think we made quite a nice job of polishing it up. I don't think it's worth putting it to GA though - we have far more interesting articles we could concentrate on. Malvern Water would be an obvious choice, if you're looking to get another GA for Worcs, as it's almost there already (and I see you've been adding to it today). GyroMagician (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Malvern water 'friends'

Hi Gyro, I know you are as keen as I am to improve all the articles concerning our native Malvern, and as serious Wikipedians, it is our duty to encourage and maintain good standards of additions by casual authors. However, please see my message on the article talk page. Then feel free to disagree :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, as you guessed, I've disagreed. It's not because I think it is vital to mention FMSW in the article, but because I think this editor has attempted to engage, and then been labelled vandal. It's faster to tag vandal and rollback, but also a fast way to turn away potential new contributors. Anyway, I haven't heard back from Malvernspa, so we'll see. GyroMagician (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there GyroMagician, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:GyroMagician. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire project template for article talk pages

I'm a bit worried that the templates on Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire/templates all seem to place a default assessment of C class and I don't know how to override or simplify this. Either that, or they need a long list of crtiteria adding. I dn't seem top remember having to do this in the past. Can you put me wise on this?--Kudpung (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

They shouldn't. The first example on the Worcs page shows ??? for both importance and classs (as it should). I did notice yesterday when I re-rated Malvern Water from C to B that I could only do that by including all the B-class checks - if I removed them, it dropped back to C. I'm fairly sure it's not related to my recent changes, but I've never rated a Worcs article as B before, so I don't know if this is a new 'feature'. I'll look into it GyroMagician (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After a bit of digging I found It is only possible to assess an article as B-Class when all six criteria are met; otherwise, it will be assessed as C-Class. here (see the Assessment section). After playing with the template, and having a look at the Sussex version, it appears that removing

|B_CHECKLIST         = yes
 |b1=
 |b2=
 |b3=
 |b4=
 |b5=
 |b6=

from the template will make this requirement go away. What do you prefer? I don't find the various B-subcats very helpful, but maybe you/others do? Either way, there is no default to C-class as far as I can see, just an extra check for B-class. GyroMagician (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I'm not an expert with Wiki templates, or any other of the tools really, (I prefer writing and improving articles and doing the occasional Afd rescue). I personally don't find this B-class check list system very helpful, especially when adding the Worcs banner to a page that has already been been tagged and assessed by one or more other projects that it comes under. It's just too time consuming. This came to light today when I tried to edit Edward Elgar page and its talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think of templates as fluff to distract us from actually contributing to articles ;-) Shall we agree to remove the B-class checklist then? GyroMagician (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there too :) Can you go ahead and do it? With the exception of the category people associated with malvern, practically all the articles re now project tagged, and if we want to assess them, we can do this on the fly without the check list - after all, a 'B' is not a GA ;) - and we are aware of the criteria. Kudpung (talk)

Done. I checked Malvern, Worcestershire and Malvern Water - both of which look okay, so I think it's fine. GyroMagician (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnards Green

I need your urgent help. I've added some references to a new Governance section on Barnards Green by copying them and pasting them from the Malvern article, but something has gone horribly wrong and left red stains on the page. Can you do a quick fix?--Kudpung (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. You were missing a }} at the end of the reference list. I added Penley Radar from Malvern while I was there. GyroMagician (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

South Worcestershire College

Edit conflict - I've had to revert your edits by repasting the entire article, because it wasn't clear from the version comparison what you had actually done. if you can remember what your edits were, gimme an hour or so to finish what I was doing, then make them again. Sorry about this ;)

I'll let you figure it out - I've spent over an hour trying to untangle your/my edits. I've already lost some in the edit conflict. I think partly we've changed the same things. I made so format and typo corrections, added some co-ords, a few details to the infobox, and formatted the refs. GyroMagician (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Golly - you're working late, must be past midnight in Switzerland! I think I've restored most of what got lost. i'll give it another proof read later because I'm still doing some more research for the article. There is in fact a banner somewhere to put on an article when you're working on it, but I can't remember where to find it. Probably quite useful while we are both often working on the same stuff at the same time.--Kudpung (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

List-defined references

Hi GyroMagician. Well, I certainly didn't anticiapte the issues that have arisen regarding the use of the ((r)) template. And I daresay nor did you. When we became aware of what we now know are called 'list-defined references', the manner in which we became aware of it, was via the use of ((r)) templates. But we now know that <ref> templates can do the job just as well, and without posing difficulties for bots or scripts.

When we worked throgh the issues, our purpose in implementing list-defined references was to ascertain the benefits of that method, not promote a specific template or get drawn into an argument about technical issues pertaining to that template. Not only is it no fun, it can derail us from our original purpose, which was just to make editing easier by whatever method seemed optimal in a given circumstance.

Given that, and given that my own goal was the use of Wikitext to facilitate list-defined references where useful and agreed as useful, I have no difficulty acknowledging the error of my ways, replacing the ((r)) templates with <ref> templates, and moving on. I've now done that in a number of articles. Indeed, I think it prudent to simply make the changes and retain the intended benefits, rather than get drawn into certain types of arguments. May I suggest you consider the same for Malvern Water, Malvern, Worcestershire, and Barnards Green. I am more than happy to assist in the change-over.

The easiest way I found to make the change was this:

1. Copy and past <ref name=/> into the Edit summary window, so it's available even when I do previews, and doesn't require me to change between windows.
2. Paste the <ref name=/> in front of each occurrance of ((r|)).
3. Work through the article, cutting and pasting the reference name from ((r|)) into the <ref name=/> template.
4. Do a preview. Any <ref name=/> templates that I've overlooked will show up in red, telling me there's a ref without a reference. There's usually only a handful if that.
5. Work through the overlooked <ref name=/> templates, copying and pasting as above. Repeat preview.
6. If nothing else overlooked, copy and past whole Wikitext from edit window onto a blank Word document. Use 'find' function (Ctrl+F) to find {{r| - That portion is common to all ((r|)) refs, and gets found if present.
7. If any are found, amend them as above, do final check, and save.
8. Do final check using pages that link function. If there are no more ((r)) templates, it will not show up. If there are any overlooked, just copy and paste to a Word document to find any stragglers.

Again, I am more than happy to do my bit to help put things rignt and move on. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An even easier method than above (I can be slow to realise some things), is to use the Ctrl+F function to bring up the little find window atop the article. Copy-and-paste the ((r| portion of the ((r|)) template into that window, and click the "Next" button. It will highlight ((r| throughout the text. Then proceed with the copying and pasting of the <ref name=/> template in front of each occurance. My preference is to do that for only as much as shows up in the edit window. So I copy the <ref name=/> template in front of everything visible in the window, then work through each occurrance, copying-and-pasting the name into the <ref name=/> template, then deleting the ((r|)) template. That way, I keep track of where I am, and minimise errors. It's still reasonably quick. In fact having realised this easier method, the last article I updated, I didn't do the copy-and-paste to a Word document at all. I worked through it per this paragraph, did a preview of course, with no red-ink error messages, saved the article, then did a check of the pages that link function. Worked a treat. But that's just my approach to date. Regards Wotnow (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

When I'm working on a big article that could attract other editors at the same time, I usually copy and paste the whole thing (or the section) into a powerful text editor such as BBedit that can use grep (regular expressions) for searching and making multiple changes. With S. Worcs Coll. I didn't think anyone would be very interested in even looking at it, so I was working online with it. Such is the power of the Worcs project teamwork ;) --Kudpung (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. Sorry about delay responding. I'm getting more efficient with my use of Wikipedia, but I've yet to try any of those tools. I've been trying to take some of the fuel out of the fire that's erupted around the "r" template. Bit of a catch-22 though. Leave the fuel there, and some point to it as the reason for the fire. Remove it, and some say "hey, you can't do that". But I can pull back now with a clear conscience, having done what I could to show compromise and restore some of Chienlit's integrity, as well as keep Maedin from getting drawn into things. So I can live with myself on that count. Thanks too Gyro for your sane comments in the discussions. Meantime, keep up the good work on the Worcestershire stuff folks. If I stay around for any length of time, I'll chip in where I can. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Then there's the mysterious Claridge

And if you ever stumble across anything helpful (and of course verifiable) about Richard Tappin Claridge, please feel free to add it to the article. After 1854, both I and an academic who I emailed, have nothing on the fellow. Here we have someone whose name is well known, who suddenly disappears of the radar screen. A bit odd I would have thought. Must be something documented somewhere. The academic I emailed speculated Claridge may have gone abroad, citing a second marriage possibly in Nice, in 1854 (Eliza Ann Morgan?) ["the Times, 7 January 1854: a marriage notice For Captain Claridge of Nice married at Marleybone to Eliza.."] [But nothing substantial enough for me to capitalise on. I couldn't track down anything informative much less citable. Dunno what happened to his first wife, although I suspect she died, or the name of his daughter (Emma?). Dunno when Claridge died. Dunno nothin'. Here was a poem I sent to that academic:

Ode to Claridge:

Oh, R.T. Claridge

However can it be

That you evoke such mystery

Oh, R.T. Claridge

Since alighting from your carriage

At Freiwaldau

(You say that how?)

To seek out Vincent Priessnitz

An Austrian, and so a Fritz,

Whose water-cure,

You promoted so sure

That your own name,

Shares near equal fame.

Yet a paradox you have sown,

If paradox it is,

That one can be of fame and yet unknown.

Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GyroMagician. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 00:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC) BTW: we need to tread carefully on tis one - an involved contributor appears to get involved in rather awkwards discussions.--Kudpung (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

if you're done

If you're done with User:GyroMagician/Gumstix you can request its deletion by placing {{db-user}} at the top of the page. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You can also use the CSDF tab at the very top of tis page and check 'U1'. Unwanted user pages then get deleted usually within a few minutes.--Kudpung (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated user page

Hi GyroMagician. I have amended my user page to take into account some new learning about these list-defined reference bizzos. The whole page has been amended to take into account, and move away from, the template {{r}} controversy. But more importantly, I have created a new section where I try to explain how I actually implement list-defined references. That itself arose from a revelation as I worked through some articles and added the <ref name=/> templates. First, I realised that when I do implement list-defined references, I do it in a slightly different order to how I previously described. I don't do the inline reference first. Having created or amended the reference section to allow list-defined references to work, I first create the full reference that I want to show up, just as I would if I was embedding it in the article text. Only then do I place the inline bit into the article text.

Now, as a result of the recent exercises I've been doing, I realise how easy it is to generate the inline bit if using the <ref name=/> template. To me, it's actually simpler than the {{r}} template, because you create the reference first, just as you would anyway, no matter what style you use. Then you give it a refname and then just copy and paste the <ref name=Refname> into the article, add a forward slash (/) thus <ref name=Refname/>, and presto, it works. The great irony is that this 'revelation' only came to me after all the recent developments. And it only came to me of course because I went through the exercise of replacing a number of {{r}} templates with <ref name=/> templates, and reflecting on what I'd learned from the whole exercise.

Anyway, I'd appreciate if you have a look at the How I do list-defined referencing section and comment on whether it makes sense to you. Regards Wotnow (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Worcs project

Hi Gyro. I've spent today doing a lot on the WP:WORCS page. i've basically created a whole new system for ToDos and article follow up. If you have a moment, please check it out and see that I haven't made too much of mess of the whole thing (and your super side-bar). Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung - real life took over for a while, but I have some time for Wikipedia again now. I have a lot of catching up to do!

Work on the Worcs project page - excellent, it needed a bit of tidying. I would still like to reduce the amount of conent on the main page - I'll see what i can do. It occurs to me that we generally discuss what we're doing on individual talk pages (mainly yours, mine and Wotnows). We should try to redirect more of this discussion to the Worcs talk page, to keep the discussion open and easy to find for not-yet-regular editors. I'm glad to see you've tamed the sidebar template - it's not the prettiest piece of code, but I guess we won't have to edit it so often. Your changes all look fine. When you create new pages within WP:WORCS, if you add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire/sidebar}} at the very top of the page (above the shortcut template), you'll get a sidebar. I started a page about Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire/Referencing, that I intend to include details of both wikipedia technicalities and how to find source material. I'm sure you can add some useful tips there. I reduced the list of other county projects to a few very active projects. You've since re-added a complete list of county projects, some of which are inactive, or close to it. I think a small set, that we can use to guide our own project, is more useful, but I'll leave it to your judgement. Oh yes, one more project point - have a look at the templates subpage - I noticed the welcome template you put on Wotnows talk page. Do you add them manually, or have you set up some wikimagic to do that automatically?

Malvern Water - thanks for the note. I suspected who the author in question may have been - and yes, I'd be interested to see the email exchange. I hope I was right about those being good faith edits, although a little misguided.

Worchester University - I think your fix was quick and ideal. Nicely diffused, and helps highlight a dubious institute.

Now, I have a monster watchlist to sort through... GyroMagician (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gyro. After checking that my own save below was successful, I noticed a couple of red link here, so I took the liberty of fixing the link to the referencing and templates pages. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation wars

Hi GyroMagician. I see the citation controversy has been escalated. This was always likely. It won't end anytime soon, if at all, and it will probably do a lot of harm along the way. I saw the writing on the wall early on. And that is exactly why I took the stance that I did, which was consistent with my original stance anyway. That is, the only gold standard is the reference information, whether or not a template of any sort is used. And if a template is used in any fashion for any reason, it must serve our purposes, not the other way around. So once I saw the writing on the wall, I replaced the ((r)) template in articles where I'd originally placed them, alerted Maedin (about the identified technical difficulties, not the looming storm), and did what I could to help Chienlit regain some integrity as a good faith editor.

In other words, once I could see there was controversy, packaged along with several agendas (themselves primarily good faith, but confounding solution and fuelling debate nonetheless), my opinion was, and remains, that the best thing to do is replace the contentious template and side-step the cesspool. Let it play out as it will. Let others who wish to be vehicles for that debate, or even drivers of it, do so. That is their choice.

I see that the ((r) template has been proposed for deletion, and some (I guess automated mechanism) now leaves a message at every use of the ((r)) template. This interferes with the readability of the Malvern, Worcestershire, Malvern Water, and Barnards Green articles - especially the first two. The mere act of leaving the ((r)) templates in place is causing problems not originally forseen or intended. Never mind if the tactic of making articles using the ((r)) templates unreadable smacks of the sort of underhandedness one sees in vicious political campaigns. Some will spot that and complain. I say so what?

My advice regarding these articles is that we replace the ((r)) templates with <ref name=/> templates. This will bring back the readability of the articles, and avoid being caught up other people's campaigns. They aren't worth getting caught up in. It's not as if they save children's lives or anything really useful in life. I will assist replacing the templates if this if desired. I would estimate the overall time for the three articles at about an hours work. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow, and sorry for not replying to your messages sooner. I think you're probably smarter than I am. Staying right out of the {{r}} discussion is clearly the right thing to do for ones sanity, but I still feel the need to comment. I think we feel the same about the issue, but your restraint appears to be better than mine! If you want to replace {{r}} with <ref name=... /> in Worcs articles I will not object, but I won't help in doing it because I think the 'discussion' has been very underhanded, and I don't want to make it easier for that particular editor. What can I say, I feel an empathy with mules. I was under the same misunderstanding as you - that {{r}} was somehow related to LDR - so at least I've learned something from the discussion.

Claridge sounds like an entertaining mystery. I would love to disappear like that - to leave a puzzle for any historian trying to chase me. But of course I'm not famous, so it would have little effect!

Thanks for your suggestions for the Worcs Referencing Howto. They look like good suggestions - I'll try to include them soon - but if you get some time before me, please go ahead and move your ideas from Talk to the main page. After all, you are a member of project Worcs now (having been our longest serving non-member)! GyroMagician (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Gyro. Dunno about smarter. Primarily pragmatic. I can't claim not to be a proselytiser and at the same time have behaviours that are inconsistent with that stance. I claim only to have been interested in ((r)) templates insofar as they made LDR possible. To be consistent, I can't make that claim, and refuse to acknowledge new knowledge that LDRs don't rely on ((r)). So I can't reasonably 'vote for' ((r)) templates. At the same time, to do justice to those who used ((r)) in good faith, joining any majority movement against ((r)) is not an option I even consider. This is especially after seeing Chienlit's situation. True I picked it up from Chienlit. But Chienlit was inspired by my own efforts to bring relevant information together in one spot, and it would unconscionable for me betray that. So my only consistent stance is one of neutrality, especially regarding the ((r)) template.

If I get a chance, I'll replace them in the Malvern, Worcestershire article, to lessen any perceived impact on its GA status. There is more to our achievement in that article than meets the eye, both for us as a group of editors, and for Dana Boomer as a reviewer.

Regarding LDR, I am in favour of its use where a gain is agreed to be had, but not of having editors feel they must use it, even within an article where it is used. I have tried to reflect all this on my user page, and have probably largely achieved that, with the caveat that it could be better laid out. Whether I get to achieve that remains to be seen - I find it easier said than done when I am trying to contain my Wikitime. As for the Worcestershire articles, I would rather give way on the ((r)) template than risk losing sight of what we were originally striving for. Such a risk exists as long as the templates are in the articles. And it doesn't even require us to lose sight. That can occur simply as a by-product of the momentum of other events.

Yes, Claridge turned out to be more intriguing than I ever imagined when I tracked down his book in pre-internet days some 24 years ago. The information is out there somewhere. It could be emigration-related. He could have somehow fallen out of favour. Perhaps fallen afoul of the law. Committed suicide. Or just died in a fashion that would be embarrassing to the promoters of hydropathy etc. Any number of things that might not be seen as the sort of thing one talks about, especially if the person in question was previously of fame and good standing. But somewhere out there, is a document, or documents, that give the clues. I probably won't find them. My circumstances will preclude that. But a good historian and researcher can solve the mystery. Some academics may be put off by the mere fact that so much info is now in the public domain of Wikipedia. But an astute, entrepreneurial researcher would know that there is so much more to say, and better than I've said it, that they could still write a fascinating thesis, book or article.

If I get a chance to transfer the Worcs referencing stuff to the main page, I will. I thought I'd start out with my ideas on the talk page, where we can feel more free to put them through the wringer, and perhaps pare them down in a fashion that is readily accessible, which you seem quite good at. I think also, by the way, that it would be useful to create some deliberate examples of those red messages that appear when there is a ref error, or a ref missing. Over time, I have found them less daunting, and actually quite helpful. If for example the red message says that the reference has a name that isn't used in the text beforehand, I've found all I have to do is copy the name from the red message, paste it into the inline citation, and presto. So a couple of examples of how to capitalise on that would be handy. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:R

I changed it from the standard template to the inline one. Change it back if you like. Of course, if your objection is that now every reference using it is tagged, then you're out of luck. It's at TfD, it needs to be tagged, and the tag needs to be visible where it's used. It works that way deliberately, it's not a side-effect. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly my complaint. Have you looked at the affected pages? There is a difference between tagging an article, and making it unreadable - I think you have achieved the latter. Surely the ideas is to warn editors on affected pages, while allowing readers to carry on as normal? GyroMagician (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Learn to read? "I changed it from the standard template to the inline one." Take it up with whoever tagged it in the first place - or generally anyone that cares. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the mature, helpful attitude I come here for, thanks. I've no idea what the standard template looks like, but the current inline one is a mess. GyroMagician (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See The Wave 96.4 FM for the normal non-inline style in action. If you'd prefer it like that, I can change it back for you. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I saw the articles before 81's change to inline, and it is an improvement on the original situation. When I made my comments above, the articles were peppered with non-inline tags per the Wave 96.4 FM article, with the centralised tag at every occurance of the ((r)) template. The articles looked ghastly. It was in that context I made my original comments, at 1:05, because the articles were truly unreadable. Meantime, at 1:27, 81' made the TFD amendment to make it inline. I was at that exact time amending my user page to remove all ((r)) templates, saving the changes at 1:28. Only after that did I revisit the Malvern, Worcestershire, Malvern Water, and Barnards Green articles, and notice the templates were now inline. I have since perused the discussions from one of the tag links, and I can see that the tags are a by-product of the need to notify editors. While I agree with Gyro that a banner template would be better, I think that 81's amendment to the existing template was a pragmatic improvement on the situation. The articles are peppered with inline tags, which impedes the readability flow. But the articles are now at least readable, whereas they weren't when I made my original comment above and on Kudpung's talkpage. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's now a bonus - I've since discovered that {{tfd-inline}} has a "tiny" parameter which makes it even less intrusive. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent|::::::} Cheers '81. I see that, after checking the template R history again. Although I see the notice has been removed altogether now. That provides an immediate 'solution' to the readability problem. But the catch-22 from that 'solution' is that things look okay at the article interface, whereas in fact the controversy continues, with the ongoing danger of collateral damage to articles from further developments. Gyro (& Kudpung if you're reading), when I next devote a block of time to Wikipedia, I'll change the ((r)) template in the Malvern article to get that out of harm's way. Following that, I'll tackle the Malvern Water article, then Barnards Green. Regards Wotnow (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi 81.111.114.131 & Wotnow, thanks both for trying to fix this. I agree that the current situation (where users of the template are not notified of the TfD) is less than ideal. I think some work needs to be done on tagging templates, but I have no idea where in W to bring this up. I missed the various iterations, so I haven't seen the tiny version, but it sounds like a step in the right direction. GyroMagician (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the Wave article is not tagged at all, but every one of its 50-odd refrences needs refactoring to MOS, my 2 cents on tagging is this: I have come across articles that have remained tagged for years. Inline tags point directly to where attention is used, and as such are good for POV, COI and blatant nonsense, for things urgently requiring attention, even if their profusion makes an article look unsightly. Top and Section Banners are more general. They draw more immediate attention to the fact that an article needs some attention, but are more susceptible of being ignored for years. Using common sense, a combination of both is, IMHO, the best solution.
When I get time I will visit the discussion you have all been referring to and if I am able to understand what it's all about I will add my comments.--Kudpung (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has more readers than writers. It will always be that way. I read far more articles than I write for. So, our primary concern should be to keep those articles readable. The flagging of the {{r}} template is to alert editors to a discussion about deletion of the template. It is information only - no immediate action is required. If the affected articles become unreadable (as I think they did in this case), Wikipedia is serving editors above readers, which I think is a priority inversion. I think this is a separate discussion from whether {{r}} is deleted or not - Wikipedia needs a better way of communicating template changes to editors - but I don't know where to raise the point. More generally, I think Wikipedia suffers from a bit too much flagging and tagging these days - it's far easier to tag an article as needing work than actually doing the work - but that's a whole different discussion again ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Coax cable image

Hi, the image was changed because of a request at WP:Graphic Lab, a project to improve the graphical content of the Wikimedia projects.

The original PNG image was converted to a JPG format as it compresses photos more effectively, where as PNG is best suited for logos and diagrams. Using JPEG will decrease the size of the image, reducing download time. I hope that answered your enquiry! :) Fallschirmjäger 18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Doh, I should have checked the filesizes before asking! I have heard/seen PNGs coming out smaller than or a similar size to JPGs, which I guess is why I asked. Here you've clearly halved the filesize, which makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, GyroMagician (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Fallschirmjäger 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies

Golly - you're working fast - I can hardly keep up with you. I'm hard on your heels adding {{todo}} list templates for the articles that need some work f`doing. If you see anything needs doing, add one too.--Kudpung (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, this is tedious work! How long did you spend adding banners to places? I've decided to stop even trying to assess the pages - I just scan over them to make sure there really is a Worcs link, and then add the banner. There are lots of very short pages here - we really have our work cut out. I'll try and go back over pages a bit more slowly once they're tagged though. GyroMagician (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GyroMagician. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire.
Message added 04:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter

I get your point about the headers messing up peoples' contents lists. Admittedly something I never thought about although I tested the newsletter on my own talk page first. The advantage is that it's a template this time, so one fix does all. The irony is, that I never wanted to do a newsletter in the first place. It was a weak attempt in trying to enlist some more support for the project. Some of those who joined have not made another edit since they put their name down.

I had a feeling it went something like that. I'm not sure a newsletter does much to gain support, but it was worth a try. It's an odd place here - I can never predict what will pass without comment and what will annoy people. The whole discussion about the {{r}} template has been...odd. It shows the worst parts of politics - editors trying to stamp out one thing because they don't like another. I think I'll try to stick to editing content for a while. GyroMagician (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

British place names

I see that the American campaign against the British pronunciation of British place names, by British Wikipedeia authors and British citizens has been relaunched. I think this campaign is deceitful and goes against an admin's remit. I might not be so prepared to let things rest this time round, especially as the editors concerned are oblivious of the sensitivities they may be affronting, and even though I am one editor who abhors opening cans of worms. I may call an RfC and will look forward to your support.--Kudpung (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it deserves an RfC, if you're prepared to fight it. I am somewhat out-of-my depth, but that's never stopped me offering an opinion before ;-) It would be good to get a wider audience to comment - maybe it's worth bringing this up on WikiProject England first? GyroMagician (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

good idea - I'll test the waters.--Kudpung (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For all your work on the Worcestershire project and the Malvern articles. Kudpung (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Next project

You're probably like me: not bothering much whether we get barnstars or not. As content writers, we'll never aspire to the great heights of the tens of thousands of edits that most people seem to think is the most important aspect of working here. Well, you and I and a discrete number of others know that quality comes before quantity ;)
I've got heavily engaged in some politics about the implementation of a new system to control the huge number of silly biographies that are created at a rate of some 500 per day, and how to sort out the wheat from the chaff. I'm mainly interested because it concerns us at the WP:WORCS, because being about places, there are a lot of people attached to them, which means a lot of BLPs that have to be resolved one way or another.--Kudpung (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I wasn't much bothered by collecting barnstars, and while it isn't my main motivation for contributing, it certainly feels good to be given one by somebody who's opinion I value. I've kept a distant eye on your venture into peacekeeping in the BLP project - it's something I really don't have patience for, but I'm happy that you and others find the energy to do it! I'm happy if I can improve a few articles, and enjoy the process. A good collaboration certainly makes that easier. As I said, let me know when you're ready for the next WP:WORCS project and I'll do my best to help. GyroMagician (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire Sauce

I like your style - you're getting almost as cynical as I do about silly edits :) I'm flying to Europe on Wednesday - are you planning on being in Barnards Green anytime between 31 March and 1 May?--Kudpung (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnards Green

I'm here. Any chance of you coming over?--Kudpung (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

Hi Gyro. I see you've go involved and this saga has escalated to the Worcester page. I feel sure that there is more to this issue than meets the eye, and has little in reality to do with the actual pronunciation of Worcester. --Kudpung (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GyroMagician. You have new messages at Kwamikagami's talk page.
Message added 01:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:GyroMagician/Gumstix

If you're finished working with this page, you can request that it be deleted by tagging it with {{Db-u1}}. --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is thoroughly out-of-date, but I've finally remembered to do this - thanks for the pointer. GyroMagician (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GyroMagician. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire.
Message added 11:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fighting Vandalism

Its seems that User:Luke108460 has made no edit, which was not reverted - see his user talk. As I am not familiar with the procedures regarding blocking a user, please have a look into this matter. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar myself, but I think the page you want is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. A user has to be given several warnings before they can be blocked, so I'd suggest leaving a message on User:Luke108460's talk page (the page you reach by clicking the link) as a start. Keep it simple and civil, and if he persists, report him to the admins. Good luck. GyroMagician (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Worcs Sauce

Hi Gyro. There's a lot more to that story than you probably realise. I did indeed remove the posting to my talk page because it was about me and contains incorrect information about my action, and there's a guideline to cover that removal. Point is that Diti would not have complained about anything , and wasn't going to until a certain editor who has been stalking me put him up to it. That certain editor was grossly, very grossly, and very personally insulting to me because I Twinkled a routine tag on one of 'his' articles months ago, and he has now been hounding me ever since by taking my comments out of context and plastering them all over the Wiki. I rarely react, but an inexperienced voluntary arbitrator (8 months on the Wiki) has inadvertently given him free licence to continue his insults, placing of silly Barnstars, and trying to bait a whole bunch of serious and mature contributors, one of whom has suggested (not quite so politely) that it might be the work of a minor. Diti unfortunately got involved when he very unnecessarily (my opinion) changed - in good faith - a photo that was perfectly alright, and I everted it. I believe in 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it', thus, making edits for the sake of making edits doesn't gel. It is sometimes difficult just to back out when you get attacked for doing something right. It give the offender a sense of victory, and certainly does in this case.
BTW, we've got stuck on getting Malvern Water passed as GA. It was very close to GA before it was nominated but it is now hanging on a minor technicality. Wotnow has done what he can, but it looks now as if it's doomed to run out of time and fail. Any chance you could contribute an idea or two? However, I don't really mind if it fails - I'd just wait a while, move on to something else, and get a new review started later.--Kudpung (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reversion solution?

Hi Gyro. Firstly, welcome back to the Malvern water article. Good to see your input in the work-up to a GA. Something odd has happened to some of the citations, with bare urls showing instead of the citation. After a couple of simple experiments and checking the previews, I have not worked out the solution. I do note that the version as at your edit of 08:50 11 July 2010 is okay. Given that, I copied-and-pasted from that version back into the article content. After saving this message, I'll try to reinstate your efforts from there. I'm expecting it to be easier to do that than to work out what went wrong, although perhaps the answer will jump out as I go. Regardless, it's great to be working with you again. Regards Wotnow (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. See what you think. You'll see by the way my latest method of template usage is to simply use "citation" regardless of the type of thing I'm citing. That's because by and large I now type out the templates as I go, and go for the simplest version that does the job (always my goal previously, just that I was on the steep part of the learning curve for citations) I find it mostly makes no difference to the way the citation displays. I did find one thing that seemed to work better when formatted as "cite x". But I can't recall what it was. I know that (a) if I carry on with my current strategy I'll stumble onto it sooner or later, and (b) if it really bugged me, I could work it out by experiment. However (b) is more time consuming, so I prefer the pragmatic (a). Regards Wotnow (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Malvern water update

Hi GyroMagician. I took a bold step with Malvern water, with the hope of improving overall readability. In doing so, I capitalised on the existing material, and tried to do some justice to the effort of Kudpung, yourself, and others. I think I succeeded, but see what you think. I elaborated a bit more on the talk page. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi Gyro. You might notice a change in your userboxes. Thanks for al your help.--Kudpung (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks KP! A pleasure to help, as always. I thought you were on holiday? GyroMagician (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I put the holiday banner there in the hope it would keep the traffic down - I've been participating a lot lately on some policy issues. --Kudpung (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Gyro. this might interest you.--Kudpung (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - I've added my support. It's nice to read an RfA and think, for a change, yes, this is an absolutely solid candidate. GyroMagician (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Gyro. I've nominated Malvern College today for GA review. Abacchus has been working very hard on it, and Wotnow has finished checking the refs. There's quite a backlog over there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that reviewers take things in order. The low hanging fruit seems to go first. It would be great if you could chip in if/when the going gets tough. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GyroMagician. You have new messages at Talk:List of Old Malvernians.
Message added 03:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your input would be most welcome :) Kudpung (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Worcester

Hi GyroMagician! an article you have contributed to, has been selected for the Wikipedia Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minutes changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 1#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release for other selected articles you may wish to update.--Kudpung (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire Sauce

Hi GyroMagician! an article you have contributed to has been selected for the Wikipedia Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minute changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 1#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release for other articles you may wish to update.--Kudpung (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This page still needs a bit of shaking out, but I'll not have a chance to do anything with it anytime soon. It's not in bad shape though. GyroMagician (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Midlands

Hi Gyro, you may like to chime in here. To be honest , I haven't made my mind up yet.--Kudpung (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see why - it's tricky. The Midlands page, as it stands, is pretty low value. But having no 'Midlands' page would also seem wrong. I'll keep an eye on it and see how the discussion develops. GyroMagician (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malvern

Hello, as far as I can see I followed the rule at Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts for redlinks on dab pages; they are meant to be navigation pages for existing articles not lists of putative articles which will probably never be, and probably should not be, written. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Those are pretty clear instructions - you are indeed correct. My apologies - sorry about that! I'll revert my revert. GyroMagician (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrathchild

Their article is totally unreferenced and full of peacock terms and speculation about their future. My main areas as you know, are wine, geography and biographies, but not so much women and song ;) If you want to WP:PROD those band articles, be my guest. Try PRODing them first, where there is a chance the PRODs will go unnoticed and the articles will get automatically deleted after 7 days. Failing that, an WP:AfD is the answer, but the danger there is that if there are no, or too few voters to reach a consensus, and after another 7 day extension, articles will default to 'keep' . Whatever you do, I'll support your decisions, but I won't be bothering to try and rescue the articles.--Kudpung (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Malvern - a FA?

Hi Gyro. I've accumulated a huge amount of experience round here since we did the Malvern GA. What we probably didn't realise at the time is that as Wiki settlements articles go, it was quite a monster undertaking. That means (you guessed!) that I reckon it's not short of FA. How do feel we give it a go? There can't be much more to do except check out the image captions, and a few minor tweaks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi KP. I did wonder that at the time (I think someone - maybe you - mentioned it). I think it's a pretty good article. Shall we have a look at it and see what it needs. If it's not too much, then yes, I'm game. GyroMagician (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. How do you feel like checking this over: WP:WIAFA, and letting me kow where you feel we might be short of the mark. The only things I can think of are some new refs that might need putting in the same format as all the others, and some image captions that need to comply with a special rule that I don't quite understand. I do not agree with theWikipedia policy that many editors insist that according to MOS all bulleted lists should be rewritten as prose. IMHO, insisting on it for Notable people sections is a stubborn interpretation of the rule, and such sections look ridiculous and are very hard to scan alphabetically for particular names. We got round this in Malvern College by already splitting the alumni of into a separate list page.--Kudpung (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been over the refs and given them a quick clean - I think I've found all that need reformatting, but let me know if you see any I've missed. I also renamed a couple of sections, before someone points out that the page name shouldn't appear in section titles. I think Malvern Water is a special case here, but we'll probably have to argue that. Using anything other than a list for notable people seems silly, but this is Wikipedia, so we'll have to see... What's the question/rule about captions that's troubling? I'll read over the page again in more detail in the next couple of days and make more comments. GyroMagician (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's something about alternative extended captions for people who cant' see the image and may be listening to a spoken version. I can't remember where I read about it.--Kudpung (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Evesham

- actually the 'in use' tag wasn't stray - i was working on on the page and the edit conflict it was supposed to preven just happened ;) --Kudpung (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops - I noticed you'd not made any changes for a several hours, so I thought you'd forgotten it. Sorry about that. GyroMagician (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I was scouring the web for more info for it - and yes, before I realised it, two hours had passed before I found what I wanted.--Kudpung (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Malvern water

Hi Gyro. Keep an eye on this page if you can please. I've just reverted an unsourced claim that CocaCola is going to close down the Colwall plant next month. I find this is very hard to believe and I've read nothing about in the newS. --Kudpung (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK it's official - it will be in tomorrow's Gazette. --Kudpung (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That was unexpected. How odd - I assumed the brand was doing quite well, as it seemed to be appearing in vending machines more and more often. I can't say I'm too upset to see it close down. I'm very sorry for the people who will lose their jobs, especially in the current job market. But Malvern is not such a large water source, on an industrial scale, and I've never been all that convinced that selling bottled MW alongside Coke and Sprite is such a great use of the stuff. Extracting too much water is not good for the source - if the Hills dry out too much, the filtration doesn't work so well. I'd far rather see the springs on the hillside flowing clean and pure. I think an operation on the scale of Holywell is far more appropriate to Malvern - and I wish Rhys Humm luck in his bid to become supplier to the Queen! (funny to think they both sell the same water to such different markets). GyroMagician (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

renaming

HI Gyro. Are you aware of the full extent of this campaign against British place names? I know you have commented on one of them: talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall, Talk:Cambridge, and talk:York.--Kudpung (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching it unfold. I haven't decided yet if this is a serious proposition, or the Wikipedia equivalent of poking a wasps nest to see what happens. I find the argument - that too many British place have the prime spot so we should make Ontario first instead - a little too hard to take seriously. GyroMagician (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:WORCS

Hi Gyro. In order to more accurately interpret Wikipedia policy, it has been suggested that we rename the Malvern, Worcestershir page. Please see the proposal at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Suggested page move where you are welcome to voice your opinion. --Kudpung (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary topics

Hello Gyromagician. I notice you are actively involved in a discussion to move Stroud, Glos. to Stroud and have produced a wealth of figures to support your argument. I am not terribly good at figures (or computers for that matter) so I was hoping you might be able to help me understand why Austin (Texas) appears to be the primary austin when Austin (the UK car company) seems to get many more hits. I am not suggesting that Austin (car) should be the primary topic, I am merely trying to understand why Austin (Texas) is! (Or are my figures wrong?).--Ykraps (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire

Hi Gyro. We have a new editor who is keen to do more research for Malvern. Do check out his suggestions if you have time, and chime in with your thoughts. There may be some issues with footnotes. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Evesham

Is now nominated as a WP:GAC. Get ready for battle :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

New message

Hello, GyroMagician. You have new messages at Ykraps's talk page.
Message added --Ykraps (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dab pages

I think our friend from the 'synonym' pages issue has been wasting a lot of people's time. I have been doing some more research based on your excellent observation. We'll see how far his barnstar for integrity gets him when ARBCOM have finish with him. I may need you as a witness for the WP:SPI. It will take me an hour or so to prepare the charge sheet. --Kudpung (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a pretty pathetic attempt. It just sounded a little too perfect. Most of us forget to login at some point, so we end up recording our IP's next to our usernames - so I searched on the username and IP, and there he was. If ARBCOM want anything from me, I'm happy to comply. Let's hope this doesn't reopen the Grand Disambiguation of English Placenames (that also happen to be the name of something else) discussion! GyroMagician (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

article on John Gunn

It has been revised, but no reference to obit, at least one blind reference, and mention of racing driver with different name. I would like to use this as example of styling of article about someone, putting references to biographies, obituaries and other comprehensive items at end of opening sentence as in User:Michael P. Barnett/style example (I did this for an acquaintance who asked me to put in a reference to biography she had written of subject of the article, then objected strenuously to use of version just linked -- I asked for its removal, and an administrator said it had been done, but it has come back, at top of hits from Google search on me, which is a pain) or William Anderson (artist) (from following up my early experiments on editing, using Leigh-on-Sea where I lived 1937--1940) where someone altered my edit slightly. I don't think it worth separating selected works when article is so thin. Maybe consolidate in single bibliography. If you fix this before I can I won't mind. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're asking. Which page should have been removed but wasn't? We should be able to fix that quickly. I had a look at John Gunn, and extended it a bit - I find these pages usually develop faster if more than one person works on them at a time ;-) Amusingly, it turns out the racing driver and the physicist are the same person! There's clearly lots more to add there. Can you explain again what you'd like me to do? Then I'll see if I can help GyroMagician (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting the motor bike reference. I did not know he was a biking enthusiast, and thought the Ian referred to someone else. Only got to the obit his daughter wrote for Physics Today yesterday afternoon. One minute error in it. She wrote that he got his degree from Trinity College, Cambridge. Degrees are awarded by the University not the college. Would be nice to find out if he got B.Sc. or Ph.D. or both at Cambridge, and if Ph.D., the topic and supervisor. I can dig into this if you like. My comment about my user subpage problem is as under control as it is going to be. Styling suggestion relate to ideas in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Some styling questions . Will put suggested revision in my User page tomorrow and augment this response. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Just emailed Records Office at Trinity Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

J.B. only had a BA, never had a PhD - it's in one of the obituaries out there - his daughter (I think) comments that he is the third Gunn to be mistakenly called Dr. (here). Re Cambridge, true, a slight reword will fix. I love the motorcycling story, because it sounds so unlikely somehow. I can understand why you might have thought it was someone else - but it's always worth following a link first, before deleting it, just to make sure.

If you're making edits to J.B.s page, make them in main space, unless it's something really drastic. I have been quite active over the past couple of days, and Jpg1954 has added a lot of detail. The page is lookin much better than when we all started.

Everybody tends to have a slightly different referencing style on WP, but we follow some broad rules, and as a rule follow the style that already exists on a page, unless there is consensus amongst editors to change it. All facts must be cited, using a reliable source. The citation follows any punctuation (comma or full stop). Over-referencing is usually (always?) unnecessary - one or two references are sufficient. Some people like to cite at the fact statement - I prefer to cite at the end of sentences, but that's only my style. The further reading section is to be kept as short as possible - any material referenced in the body text should not appear also under further reading. Numbering the further reading list is unnecessary (because the list should be short) and generally discouraged (because it encourages a long list, and referring to it). I hope that helps a bit - this is my interpretation of the Manual of Style, which is the definitive reference. For specific questions, ask on Gunn's talk page. HTHs! GyroMagician (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RRE

I made a start on expanding the RRE article. For what it is worth, I went on to teach and run large computer lab at MIT, a turbulent 1964-5 back in UK at late but not lamented Institute of Computer Science in U. London, industry, Columbia and CUNY, early work in electronic publishing (MIT Press book) computational chemistry, symbolic calculation -- condensable to 10 words Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Gyro. Take a look at this when you get a moment. I personally feel that if someone is not going to take on a review, they have no business leaving comments like this, and should stay out of it. Nevertheless, I'm personally relieved that I won't have to work with this reviewer on a GA again. --Kudpung (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

exasperation

I just posted reply on my user page that may be the end of trying to contribute -- sorry Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant a reply to another editor Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GyroMagician. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (embedded lists).
Message added 12:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Evesham

Hi GyroMagician. A Worcestershire Project page has now been taken on by a reviewer for Good Article after a very long wait. Several points need addressing, but the page has not been rejected as an immediate fail. If you have time, please see Talk:Evesham, and if you can address any of the points listed, I'm sure that between us we can get it through to GA. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Update

I put a comment and a metacomment on the Telecommunications Research Establishment site and brought it to attention of Jpg1954. I should have brought it to you as well. I put the RRE article on hold -- cleaning up articles about Charles Coulson and Rosalind Franklin had higher priority, but the Coulson article went into limbo as result of wiki-legalisms and I am reluctant to try putting any more material directly into articles until I get clearer picture of whether WP is going into self destruct by legalists finding ways to obstruct substantive contributors. Ironically it was trying to help with Evesham article that gave me further insight into propensity of WP to develop epidemic errors. I have been expressing some views on various guideline websites quite politely but a bit critically. 71.224.245.75 (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC) forgot to sign 71.224.245.75 (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Evesham history

Hi Gyro. I've suddenly realised that there has been no movement on the Evesham GA for nearly 2 weeks. I thought you were going to have a crack at the history section, but if I misunderstood something, please accept my apologies and let me know. Kind regards, --Kudpung (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, and sorry for being a bit absent recently. I had intended to work over the history section and other parts of the Evesham page, but work has been a bit 'demanding' recently (hence I'm only just packing up on a Sunday evening!). I probably won't be doing anything substantial for the next few weeks. GyroMagician (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gyro. Well, we lost Evesham. None of us is to blame really. You got busy, I ended up in hospital for a couple of weeks only able to do a few sporadic minor edits around the site and then I got sent off to the jungle for a couple of weeks with a very poor sat connection that was stable for all of 30 seconds each time I could log on. I'm back home near Udon as from late last night and apparently have to face the music this week at RfA, so I'll pick up on Evesham some time in the near future. There's a bit of a barney going on at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire. It looks as if my appeal to stop people indiscriminately adding stuff has backfired and the whole thing has opened up a can of worms in the Notable Folk section. I'm going to stay out of it now because it's basically become a wrong venue for redesigning notability policies. Kudpung (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi KP. Yes, shame about Evesham, but it was just the wrong time for all of us. We'll have another shot when we're all better prepared - the article is still a very good base to work from. I hope nothing serious is wrong on your side. I've always found the best part about being in hospital is leaving (and I used to work in one!). I've seen the (slightly bizarre) barney at Malvern, and decided to stay well clear of it. Last time I checked, the gist of the argument seemed to be that we can't be sure reliable sources are not fake, so we'd better not include them. I'm assuming (hoping) the discussion will burn itself out without intervention. GyroMagician (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll pick up on Evesham again when things calm down. Michael was doing his best to improve the Malvern article and I admire his tenacity for sources even if the items to be sourced were not always quite the right ones. He certainly seems to have some good print media to refer to. If he was a young man in the 50s when he worked at RRE that would make him almost an octogenarian today and I wonder if he knew my father. There seems to be a lot of polemic about the blue plaque on the Aldwyn Tower. Well, I have to scoot, apparently my RfA is going to be transcluded in a couple of hours, so start praying for my moral soul - the next 7 days is sure to be sheer hell ;) Kudpung (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GyroMagician. You have new messages at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire.
Message added 15:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

info

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kudpung —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.206.140 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gyro. I just want you to be sure that I know nothing about the above link and who posted it. It geolocates to New Jersey and it may have been sent in good faith as it seems to have been sent to a number of editors who have worked on the same articles asyou and I have. My RfA isn't going as well as expected, but in the light of the unsigned canvassing, it's probably best you stay away from it. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WORCS - How to write about settlements: Move?

Hi Gyro. I originally wrote this Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire/How to write about places in Worcestershire as a sub page to the Worcs project, but I feel it is just slumbering there. I'm considering moving it to a stand-alone Wikipedia essay - after a few small changes - and putting links to it on all the geographical projects where I feel it might get a broader use. Because I wrote it, the move would probably not need a consensus, but as you contributed to it I'm asking you if you see any objections. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Malvern 16th-17th centuries

Sorry I have not followed up on Gunn diode -- I just feel increasingly awkward as an intermediary. And WK is a sideline. Have been nibbling at main article on Malvern, with benefit of improved logistics. I see you have made changes very close to one of the places where 1622 is given as critical date for bottling Malvern water. I doubt if water was bottled then. Can believe someone published something, but what where? The reference to the spas book in the main Malvern article does not help. I can take another look at its precursor dealing with spas before 1815 but I did not see it during a quick inspection. Where did you find Elizabethan info you quote? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed you had asked for a reference for 1622 item, so I think it not inappropriate to have asked you the question last night, and to follow up with what I have found (and not found). The valid reference is in Malvern water, numbered [21] that has a complete reference, an external link to the full text, and another link to just the reference on a pubmed page. I went by other routes to a slightly more convenient full text This includes the quotation from Banister's work and an extensive bibliography. The references in Malvern water, to the article by Poynter seems to be irrelevant. I have inspected it on the screen -- it is not very long. I will delete the dud reference in Malvern water, and put the good reference into the main Malvern article. But finding all the places where the dud reference is given, and correcting these, is time consuming. Are there resources to streamline this kind of process? Is it worthwhile? I have enough trouble at the moment with sculpted pulses and product operators (Janet identified herself -- I may have met her when in a pram) -- but I'm not digging.

Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Michael P. Barnett (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ridley–Watkins–Hilsum theory, and Gunn effect

Hudavendigar has made extensive edits to Ridley–Watkins–Hilsum theory. Do you think the changes are sound? Should we ask him/her to take a stab at improving Gunn Effect? Jpg1954 (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jpg1954. I really don't know very much about the subject, but the additions look sound, and read well. Yes, I think it's a good idea to ask him/her to take on the Gunn Effect page - please go ahead and invite. GyroMagician (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Malvern, Worcestershire/archive1

Hi Gyro. I listed this at peer review because I thought it would lie there for weeks before someone picked it up. However, it was retrieved in seconds by User:Tim riley for whom I did the peer review for his Elgar article some time ago that later passed FA. There is no hurry for this PR and there are no deadlines, but I'm just letting you know in case you would want to help out with some tweaks. I am flying to the UK (Barnards Green) on 19 July and will be staying for 2 months. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi KP, I'll have a go as I have time. A useful review, BTW GyroMagician (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having a go at it. Have you any ideas about what might be the consequences of the referencing system when it(eventually) comes up for FAC? I've let Wotnow know about the PR but he has not been editing for a long while. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For catching and taking action to prevent hoaxes entering Wikipedia. Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about the serious potential for harm of this kind of misinformation, and I just wanted to thank you for your diligence. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool - thanks :-) It amazes me the lengths some people go to, to vandalise WP. But we all keep an eye out for this kind of thing, and mostly it gets caught. GyroMagician (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

what the?

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies#No_Lie_MRI

What led you to think that was "a case of self-promotion"? --cc 16:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It struck me as promotion of a non-notable company. What stood out was the sudden appearance of a lot of links to the page showing up on my watchlist. I also think NLM are pushing an idea as reliable as the polygraph, so I guess that makes me automatically suspicious. But I wasn't certain, and my opinion about what they do shouldn't come into it, so I asked for a second opinion. I should have notified you when I did that though - sorry for not doing so. GyroMagician (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

	Bet you wish you were here!
	Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you to KP! I hope you've had a good one. I can barely move for scoffing too much turkey :-) GyroMagician (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Peter Mansfield

It would appear to be the same fellow, yes. I don't know much about the National Academy, but it seems that US citizenship/residency is not a requirement for membership - there are numerous other British members that I'm aware of, it seems. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cool, I've learned something ;-) Do you have a ref? I'll try to add a note somewhere in the page - unless you want to do it. GyroMagician (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Malvern

Hi Gyro. Could you please take a look at Malvern and its recent talk page discussions. I still feel that there is still excessive detail in some sections, including the rambling description of quotes of what other people have said about the town, the places of worship, and other diverse sections. I've already cut a lot out. I would like to see us get this to FA this year. Six months ago a peer review was done, but possibly needs to be done again. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. When you recently edited Peter Mansfield, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Westcott and Central School (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) 10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

University of Nottingham Students' Union Council

Hi, I'm writing up a motion to the UoN SU Council to promote the use and publication of media under free licences. As a UoN student/alumnus, I was wondering if you'd like to give your input.

Please comment at commons:Commons:Village pump#Motion to University of Nottingham Students' Union Council.

-mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gyro

Best wishes

for the holidays and 2013 from a warmer place than where you are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Talkback Hello, GyroMagician. You have new messages at Talk:Evesham. Message added 02:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Cold? Best wishes for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Europe 10,000 Challenge invite Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, GyroMagician. 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) Malvern, Worcestershire I have finally got round to listing it for review as a Featured Article. All help needed! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC) The FAC failed as no one was willing to assist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, GyroMagician. 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) Newsletter WikiProject Worcestershire Worcestershire - one of England's oldest and still existing (with some minor boundary changes) ceremonial and political shires, famous for its nearly 1000 year old cathedral, the River Severn, the AONB of the Malvern Hills, some of the oldest schools in the country, England's fastest growing university, apples, pears, cider and cricket, and of course its world famous sauce. The Wikiproject is now in need of some attention. Created 12 years ago, this project amassed a huge resource for editors working on all kinds of articles and categories related in some way or another to the county. Kudpung is more or less retired from Wikipedia getting on for 2 years ago and it would be good if a group of editors could get it up to date and continue to maintain it. Opt out of this message list here. WikiProject Worcestershire 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC) WikiProject Worcestershire Newsletter - May 2023 CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)