User talk:Hughcharlesparker/2010

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

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Hughcharlesparker! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 331 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Doof (musician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Shaun Parkes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alex Stone

The article Alex Stone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. This incident has no long-term significance.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Doof (musician)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe Chill (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Brain Gym logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brain Gym logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you've marked this image as orphaned - it's used in the Brain Gym article. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have popped up in that category after a vandalism edit that appears to have broken the infobox... fixed now... Skier Dude (talk 01:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash from the past

Surprise? You were not only the first editor to contact me when I was unsure that I'd need a computer science degree or something to work on the Wikipedia, and answered my first panic attacks as I got adjusted to this software. Please put this someplace nice. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For Hughcharlesparker who kindly answered my first Wikipedia inquiries, and without whom I'd never been able to mark more than three years ediing here. I never forgot. Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handsworth & Rookery School

Hi, Hugh. With reference to your Redireect for Discussion:

There is a Rookery School, Handsworth listed at List of schools in Birmingham.
According to the school's website it is a 3 - 11 school.
According to Ofsted (URN 132138) it is a Primary School
According to standard practice, primary schools do not qualify for insertion in the Wikipedia unless they have some special notability. The usual procedure is to redirect the page to the closest possible page or settlement while merging to that settlement the basic details of the school. In the case of Rookery School, it should redirect to Handsworth, West Midlands where the school is now briefly mentioned in the education section.
Xbot has apparently made a false positive and redirected the redirect to Handsworth, West Midlands to the Handsworth dab page

# (cur | prev) 20:15, 12 December 2010 Xqbot (talk | contribs) m (24 bytes) (Bot: Fixing double redirect to Handsworth) (undo)

This can be undone, but as an enquiry has been opened, I will have to ask an admin to retrieve the original school stub that the bot has 'lost', back to the redirect history.

I hope this explains. It would have been simpler to look in the history and contact me direct, but there is no harm done. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the history - I was dealing with the article as I found it. In any case, really? It's usual to have a redirect to a single line in another article? That seems odd. Anyway, this discussion needs to happen on the RFD page, not on my talk page. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't look at the history. so you did'nt inform me either if I knew that the bot had made a false positive revert, so that I could revert the bot with one mouse click. The unnecessary discussion you started will now take a statutory week to resolve. The discussion is not taking place on you talk page either, the information above was just a good faith gesture to put you in the picture, as you had started the RfD, and explain what you can do to help remove technical problems in the future on the one hand, and to let you know about our standard procedure for primary schools on the other, should you come across a similar case in the future.--Kudpung (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]