User talk:Hughcharlesparker/2008

talk page
2006 archive
2007 archive
2008 archive
2009 archive
2010 archive
2011 archive

Nabataean language

Hello -

I have just translated the DE article, as you requested, and tried to integrate the information correctly into the existing article. Since I am not a professional linguist, I hope that I have done this correctly, so that no information has been left out or stated redundantly or whatever. It has not yet been proofread by anyone else and I don't know when that will happen.

When you request a translation, please make sure that you place the template on the translations page after you create it or else it will get lost. I found your request when poking around to find the "lost" requests.

Have fun! Scbarry (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question re: Vandalism

Hey Hugh! Long time since you ushered me into wikipedia! But now I come to you as an Admin. There's a Vandal with 6 complaints now on his talk page from 6 different pages! But he's got no username. It's someone at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.220.211.225 I couldn't really understand the instructions for these issues, so I'm hoping you can do something about him. <shrug> It's a problem... I'm just trying to "get" the editing of pages! (Someone really needs to make the complaint system clearer, IMHO.) Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leah. I'm not an Admin, so I can't do anything about the person you're having a problem with. There's a good, clear page about vandalism and what to do about it: Wikipedia:Vandalism. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

Hello,

Thanks for welcome - I'm new to Wikipedia editing so please bear with me if I make a few mistakes trying to get up to speed. Could you please further explain the "reliable source" idea. Reason I ask: I scanned "reliable source" definition and it seems far too restrictive to allow for any sort of anecdotal evidence. Clearly we want to use reliable sources for the basic info and facts on a page, but if we become so restrictive on each page that no anecdotal evidence or anecdotal links are allowed then we have a very sterile encyclopedia which becomes, by definition of 'lack of flexibilty' much less useful.

Just my $.02 being a newbie with an outside perspective. Would enjoy your thought on this as you seem a very enlightened individual given edits and such so I would value your opinion here...Thanks again! Healthyskeptic77 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Healthyskeptic77. Basically, you're right: the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources guideline is restrictive enough to forbid any anecdotal evidence. You're wrong about the effect, though: it doesn't make the encyclopedia sterile, there's a rich variety of good sources out there. It makes it verifiable: without these rules the encyclopedia would have no claim to be accurate. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for response - and point taken - sources should be verified. What, however, constitutes a verified source? e.g. there is a source listed on a page I tried to edit which I believe to be a very biased, unreliable source. The source is an academic whos focus is Philosophy, yet he is listed as a source to debunk a more scientific topic.

My argument here is that while I tried to add a link to what may also be considered a biased source (and my link was remove - maybe rightly so), shouldn't the other unreliable source - this quote from a retired Philosophy professor which seems wholly inappropriate - also be removed?

Thanks again for willingness to chat on this topic - much appreciated! --Healthyskeptic77 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. You have the wrong end of the stick slightly - it isn't sources that should be verfied; assertions should be verifiable - they should have citations to support them, in order that a reader can go and verify the assertion for themselves if they want to. I could go on at great length about this, but there is a wikipedia page which you need to read which explains all of this better than I would here: Wikipedia:Verifiability.

As to what and who constitutes a reliable source, again wikipedia has an excellent page discussing this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Particularly, the scholarship section of the page is relevant to your questions.

As far as I can tell the link you added didn't match those criteria. The main reason it was removed, though, was that it wasn't placed in the article as a citation to back up a particular assertion, it was just added as a link. The reason the text and citation that you removed were put back was that the citation was to a reliable source that did support the assertion being made. You question the value of the author of the source, Robert Todd Carroll - his field is indeed philosophy rather than science, but the two are not isolated from each other. Dr Carroll has spent more than thirty years as a teacher and author in, among other areas, critical thinking - this is useful in a discussion about Applied Kinesiology, which is criticised for the fact that its underlying science doesn't stand up to a critical analysis. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilium Diagram

The diagram of the pelvic bone has the labels "Illium" on it - and that spelling contradicts with the article Ilium (bone). It should be one "L", no? Bockbockchicken (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know how I missed that before - I've just corrected it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Social Liberalist Party

Continuing from User talk:Voteliberalist#Notability of Social Liberalist Party -

Hi You deleted my article and links to the article on the Social Liberalist Party that was set up in the UK about a month ago. This is a real and valid political Party, so i found it puzzling that you even deleted it from the list of minor political parties in the UK As an encyclopedia, you'd expect wikipedia to be up to date, but in actual fact you've kept it a whole month out of date! I also don't understand why it was so bad to group the party under the title of Social Liberalism in the list of UK parties that hold that ideology, seeing as it really is Social Liberal, and arguably even more so than the Lib-Dems, who have been allowed to keep their place in that list. Don't you think it is also right and proper for a political party, however small to be recognised in notability, simply by its existence and registered presence with the electoral Commission? If the party were to win an election, however small, wikipedia would be shown to be tragically out of date! I even included the Commission's register as proof of existence for the first reference. The article was also clearly objective, and I challenge you to disagree with that! I hope that this is sufficient proof of its notability for you. It was my first article on Wikipedia, and so I accept that I made some errors. As you have deleted it, could you please be kind enough to write the article to replace it? Thankyou, Voteliberalist (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Voteliberalist. Thanks for leaving such a carefully considered comment - it makes writing a clear reply a lot easier. You make several points about your article, which I'll address in turn:

• The party is real: Yup, I accept that - I went and found its entry on the Electoral Commission's website.
• The party is valid: Who am I to say? Wikipedia is about reporting the world as it is. I've got no business deciding whether or not the party is valid.
• Wikipedia should be up to date: Yes, it should.
• The article was objective: No, I don't think it was. The article was written entirely from the party's point of view, by one of its members.
• The key point: any party should be "recognised in notability, simply by its existence and registered presence with the electoral Commission". No, I don't accept that, and neither does wikipedia. The Electoral Commission's criteria for registering a political party is simply that you submit £150, a party constitution, and a statement about financial compliance. Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects that are notable. To quote wikipedia's guideline about the notability of groups and organisations: "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This simply isn't the case. As you say, your party was formed only a month ago - it's received no coverage at all. All of this may change, of course - By the time of the April 2010 elections, when your party is fielding candidates in all 650 seats, having taken the public imagination by storm and had your policy program discussed at length in every national newspaper, etc, the party will clearly be notable, and someone will write an article about it.

As to the entry on the List of political parties in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia's notability criteria apply just as much on that page as on any other. Reading that page probably would have given you a different impression, though - there are plenty of red links and external links on the page which need taking out.

You say this was your first wikipedia article, and you probably made some errors - actually, I thought you did a pretty good job. Your only errors were to write an article about a non-notable entity, where you had a conflict of interest. I encourage you to stay around on wikipedia, and contribute - I'd recommend a new account, though - wikipedia discourages promotional usernames. It also completely forbids usernames used by groups - each username must be used by only one person. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply. I will take your advice into account. I'll now resume my efforts to make the Party as notable as possible!

Anton Howes aka Voteliberalist (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Request for Rollback...

...has been granted. Please remember to only use Rollback for blatant vandalism. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page comments

in reply to this comment on her talk page:

Thank you for educating me about editing others' comments. Totally makes sense despite author errors. Some things just need to stand as they are. There are millions of other errors out there to correct! Cinderelly007 (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)cinderelly007

:) You're welcome. Keep editing. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK Legislation

Hi. I have adopted the TheyWorkForYou link into my proposed revision of {{Infobox UK Legislation}}. This can be found at User:Road Wizard/Sandbox 4 where you can test how the code works. I am a little cautious about how it will work in practice though as the first test I tried (Peerage Act 1963) returned some very poor results. Restricting the field for use only on recent Acts may improve the quality of the search results. This will need further testing before inclusion in a live version of the template. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have identified another flaw with the search, as the Act is not called an Act until after Royal Assent. Therefore a search of Hansard for the Act will not return any debates except by shear chance. An alternative search would be Peerage+Bill (with no mention of year) though in the case of this search the results would be wildly off the mark (mainly pages that happen to mention peerage and bill). I am open to suggestions, but I am doubtful if we can find an acceptable solution. Road Wizard (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation continues at Template Talk:Infobox UK Legislation. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiEducator

Hope you got back Ok from the wikimeet. Check WikiEducator!Harrypotter (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching for use of a source

Hi, we spoke on Sunday about a particular source and you said there was a way of googling wikipedia for websites linked to? ϢereSpielChequers 22:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. No wonder I couldn't understand when you were trying to tell me your username :) I've realised that the exact tactic I was talking about won't work, but a similar one will.

Google lets you specify options in the search bar. If I specify "site:something.com" I only get results from that site. If I specify "link:somthingelse.org" google searches for pages that link to somethingelse.org. You can be as specific or otherwise as you wish - if I don't want to search all of something.com I can search for "site:subsite.something.com", or "site:subsite.something.com/really/specific/part/of/site", and so on. I can also combine the two. Some examples:

• googling for "Hughcharlesparker" searches the whole web, and gives these results

• googling for "Hughcharlesparker site:wikipedia.org" searches wikipedia, and gives these results

• restricting it even further, I can search for "Hughcharlesparker site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User" which gives these results, and shows me where my username crops up on talk pages on the English wikipedia.

• combining "link:" and "site:"; searching for "link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hughcharlesparker site:en.wikipedia.org" should show me pages on the English wikipedia which link to my user page. but it doesn't. I'm guessing that the wikipedia's use of the nofollow tag is the problem, but I could be wrong. Trying to use both tags together does seem to be a bit flaky.

I think the best way to do what you're after is to search for the phrase using the "site:" tag. Googling "jewishvirtuallibrary.org site:en.wikipedia.org" seems to do the job - results. I don't see that this gains you much over just using Special:linksearch, though. If you wanted to search for it in a reference, perhaps searching for "url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org site:en.wikipedia.org" (results) is more what you're after - it returns no results. For comparison, searching for "url=http://news.bbc.co.uk site:en.wikipedia.org" gives a lot of results.

Let me know whether all this is of any use to you. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for that, I searched for this and got reassuringly only 40 hits, one in Hebrew which I don't think needs translating and most of the rest in archives and discussions on user pages about hate sites. But thanks for introducing me to Special:linksearch jewwatch.com comes up 69 times there including some that need checking out.

PS When I came up with WereSpielChequers it didn't occur to me that I'd ever have to say it! ϢereSpielChequers 17:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dolphin Square

Could you please explain why you interfered with the entry for Dolphin Square? The material you removed - and which I am putting back - is part of the story of the Square. Rather than swan around the net interfering with people's entries, why don't you check with those who know first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmar (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy your comment to the talk page of Dolphin Square, and reply there. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Voting is open :-)

A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open over at meta - there's tons of information online over there, and the mailing list has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the meta pages :-)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Vote

Hi you signed up as being interested in being a memeber of wikimedia UK 2.0. Just a reminder the that the vote for the inital board at m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Vote ends next Saturday (September 25th).Geni 03:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

London 14

Hi, I noticed your participation the other Sunday. London 14 is up and running, scheduled for October 12 if you're interested. Best, WilliamH (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock

{{unblock-auto}} - template removed

Are you sure you're actually blocked? You made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_von_Clausewitz&diff=prev&oldid=246718279 this edit 30 minutes after the autoblock was implemented. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can find no blocks on either your username or the IP specified. —Travis^talk 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

80.249.49.105 (talk · contribs) is a shared school IP, so I guess Yasin ali1970 (talk · contribs) is another user on that IP. You were able to edit after the block, so everything seems to be ok. Spellcast (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole of Birmingham's school system accesses the internet from behind a cluster of proxies. I copied and pasted that template straight from the "blocked" message wikipedia gave me. I got round the block by refreshing a few times until I ended up going through a different proxy, and thus a different IP address. I've just got the same message again - screenshot attached. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the autoblock on that IP. It should be ok now. Spellcast (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mac

Mac has a very long history of ignoring the policies you are trying to explain to him. Look through his history to see this issue come up again and again and again (poorly chosen redirects, POV redirects, a fondness for poorly chosen EL's...). This is part of a pattern of behavior going on since 2004. NJGW (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd spotted. I'd also spotted the {{sockpuppet}} tag on his userpage. I don't see what my options are, though, other than to watch a bunch of pages, engage in a frustrating conversation, eventually call in WP:3O, rinse, repeat. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The sock thing might be nothing, might be something (see Nukeless (talk · contribs)). Otherwise, the more people are aware of Mac's slow grinding misuse of redirects and POV pushing (which at the very least isn't a morally repugnant POV) the easier it is to keep him in line with policies/guidelines. I just tell people as they come in contact with him, because he's the kind of user admins are afraid to deal with. NJGW (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? How do you mean, afraid to deal with? What sort of user is it that admins are afraid to deal with? What ways are there of dealing with problematic users who aren't blatant vandals? I'm fairly new to the sort of editing that gets me involved in that sort of thing, so I'm glad to find out about this sort of issue. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Most admins don't want to touch an issue unless it is 100% clear without looking at a user's history what is going on. The alternative is a long drawn out process, leading eventually to arbitration (which is even higher level admins who want to deal with stuff like this even less). The test is "is it clearly disruptive?" You and I may see Mac as clearly disruptive, but there's no policy that says "creating BS redirects will get you blocked," so many admins are overly cautios. As for dealing with Mac... keep an eye on the articles that you have an interest in, and always thoroughly check Mac's edits. I use edit summaries that show Mac I've got my eye on him, as well as suggest to other editors that maybe they should to (e.g. "Mac, this nonsense again?"). Mac does however serve a purpose higher than Wikipedia, which is in direct violation of COI/POV. At some point taking it to the COI or NPOV noticeboards may be the thing to do. NJGW (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I don't think I want to use that sort of edit summary - by dealing with each issue on its own merits, hopefully any editor will spot a pattern - and if they don't, the edit summary won't make a difference. I was hoping you'd have some insight into less hassleful, shorter, and quicker ways of having this sort of conversation. Any ideas? And what is this higher purpose Mac serves? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I and others have tried talking to him in the past, but he's been at this much longer than I have and shows no signs of slowing down. Mac's interest is getting the word out on every company that has anything to do with either electric vehicles or fossile fuel/plastic alternatives... which doesn't make him a bad guy, but does rub up against spam, redirect, stub, EL, and list policies (which makes him an annoying guy). The fact that Mac seems to feel his actions are all vindicated by his calling really makes dialog much more difficult... but admins deal with bad guys, and try to ignore the annoying guys, so he goes unchecked. The other issue is just the volume of his edits... 21,000[1] (of which less than 500 were in talk space, so you see how much he likes to discuss). By the time you've asked him a question about one redirect he's created 50 more and ignored your question. I think there's definitely something to take to the ANI boards, but they'll want extensive documentation (try digging that up from the 21000 edits!) and I'd be willing to bet that the process will take weeks, if not months, before anything happens.

If you want to try any sort of intervention, conversation, or escalation, I'm behind you 100% and would be glad to help out however I can, I just want you to see what you're up against. NJGW (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's desperately sad, really. All that effort to achieve absolutely nothing, where a couple of letters to an elected representative would achieve so much more. I'm not really interested in pursuing an individual editor, though. I just thought I might be on the track of finding a solution to a problem I've recently found. Oh well, worth a try. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, I hadn't even thought about the letter writing angle. Well, the more of us there are keeping the redirects and 'see also' links straight in our little corners of Wikipedia, the more cohesive the project will be as a whole. That and letting people know what to look for in Mac's edits has been the most effective way so far I've found to deal with it. Good luck, and let me know if you need any more info about this. NJGW (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are not a bold person, writting about me in this corner and saying nothing to me . I do not ignore you, but really you merit it after seeing this . --Mac (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mac, I've tried communicating with you so many times over the past 10 months it's annoying. You never respond to comments, and just keep doing what ever you want to do. Please comment on the issues raised above rather than if the method of conversation hurts your feelings. NJGW (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

...but please don't do it on my talk page. This page is for communications between me and other people, not for other people to communicate with each other. Since Mac's the key person in this conversation, I'll reply to some of the above on his talk page. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Hey, are you interested in helping me clear the backlog of trivia from Wikipedia? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah :) I'd been wondering about posting a message on WT:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup suggesting that we pick a week and make a determined assault on the June 2007 category. Until I started trivia cleaning a few weeks back, I hadn't realised how important watching the pages was - I've come across two real WP:OWNership issues - Talk:Dolphin Square#Dolphin Square Tenants' Association and Talk:Vampyr#Trivia. Any hints on dealing with those situations without so much hassle? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenmar

Hi Hugh, I left him a final civility warning and will take any further uncivil comments from him to ANI. I'm tempted to just close the conversation as completed -- he can go to a noticeboard if he wants to appeal consensus, policies, process, etc. --guyzero | talk 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help. With any luck we can all move on to something more interesting. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fellows, Hopefully this is wrapped up. Hugh, I'd like to commend you on your restrained and reasoned approach in the face of what I would regard as significant provocation. He seemed to blame you for the sins of all of us. Well done. Nelson50^T 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the article Nelson, and I totally agree with you. Hugh's patience in explaining and reexplaining what was going on to try to help the user understand, despite the continued name-calling, etc. was really, really commendable. I'm sorry it ended there in a negative way, but I feel like we hit every button possible (and then some) to try to produce the opposite outcome. I'm still learning (my first 3O) and would appreciate any candid feedback on whether I could have done anything different to help the process, or if I misquoted policy, etc. thanks again! --guyzero | talk 08:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Guyzero. I think we three were probably too nice. He treated policies like scripture - only citing them when it suited his case. His demeanor was unpleasant throughout. If he reappears with the same behaviour anywhere else I would apply to have him blocked. Nelson50^T 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cookie!

JJ Cool D has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 09:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ACC Tool

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and/or the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for your participating in the account creation process. -·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you!

Thanks for having the guts to remove the trivia section from Tesseract. I'd like to put it on the record here that I fully second this removal. I should've done it myself earlier, but I refrained 'cos people kept adding stuff to it. Thanks for making the article much better!—Tetracube (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Join the fun!. I'm making a gradual assault on Category:Articles with trivia sections from June 2007 at the moment. This cartoon is my inspiration in this mission. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There were a number of notable and relevant references there. Please inspect things and clean properly if you feel you must rather than leaving a mess for others to clean up. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I did inspect the article closely. I stand by my edit summary: the tesseracts in popular culture section was nothing more than a collection of references to tesseracts in fiction. Wikipedia is not for that sort of thing. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

IMNSHO, a more acceptable form for the notable and relevant references is integration into the main text of the article with actual discussion of the reference in question and how it relates to the article, rather than listing it just for the sake of listing it (see my comment in Talk:Tesseract).—Tetracube (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Tesseract#Trivia II. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 00:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mactruth

Why did you delete my content on my home page? Mactruth (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops - I misread the tool I was using. I thought you'd edited someone else's userpage. Sorry. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a polite observation, you appear to have left a level 3 warning at User talk:Mactruth. It might be better if you remove the warning rather than some other editor. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done - thanks. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Trifles

I noticed that you've worked on the article on Trifles recently. I left the following comment in discussion. I will also try to inform someone who's worked on the article recently: Film adaptation, directed by Pamela Walker at Pixar. http://talesofcolossus.blogspot.com/ http://munchanka.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ernst Haeckel

This is in reference to a rollback disallowing a reference to the biographical film about Ernst Haeckel. The addition was made in good faith, under the philosophy that an encyclopedia ought to be attentive to the needs of a newcomer... and significantly, right at the very top of the page. Having been inspired by the film, I came to the entry and found it too long, too technical, and too concerned with angry political bickering... in short, poorly executed. I was just trying to serve other readers who might have the same problems. What am I doing wrong? Chairease (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chairease. Sorry there was such a long gap before I replied - I took a wikibreak. I know your addition was made in good faith - I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I should have left a message on your talk page to explain. The first paragraph of an article isn't the place for information about films about the subject - that's what the see also section is for.

I've created an article for the film (Proteus (2004 film)), and added a link to it in the see also section of the article. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

Thank you for your mediation on this. I'm trying to go back and summarize all of the latest round of issues, as well as expand on some of the old issues. Please review Talk:Order of the Arrow/FAQ and give me a sanity check. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay - I'm just back from a wikibreak. I gave the FAQ a once over - basically, I just formatted it a bit, and softened the tone in a couple of places. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied the lead from Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is where I got the idea for the FAQ. The OA does not have rituals, so I changed this to ceremonies. The article now has an edit notice that links to the FAQ. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK v2.0

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited!

Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - December 2008 Issue

Summary: You can now join Wiki UK Ltd, which hopes to become the official UK chapter of Wikimedia in January. The organisation is planning its first Annual General Meeting, where members can vote on who is on the board, and put forward and vote on resolutions. The organisation is already supporting activities such as a bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford and the exciting Wikipedia Loves Art project at the Victoria and Albert Museum. We also bring you news of the the recent Wikimeet in London.

In this month's newsletter:

1. Chapter formation
2. Membership
3. AGM
4. Wikimania 2010 - Oxford bid
5. Wikipedia Loves Art
6. London Wikimeet

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Newsletter delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)