User talk:Peterkingiron/Archive 2

Anarchist

Heya, I've noticed you've been contributing to articles similar to mine, i.e. related to activist/anarchist people. My article on Bruno Masse is threatened of deletion, could you please vote to keep it? You can vote [| here]. In solidarity! Lkeryl (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krajina Towns Again

Hi there. If you remember some time ago there was an issue with the Krajina town catory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_29#Category:Former_Towns_of_RSK_1991-95. We have yet another problem and another vote as some Croats are not happy with this topic existing. Please add a vote or some input. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Towns_in_the_Former_RSK Thanks. (LAz17 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Peter. You objected to merging that list ("Towns in the Former RSK") into the main article on the Republic of Serbian Krajina because it would make the latter even longer. Well, I have taken the liberty of copying the list to that main article, to show how it would fit there. I think that it doesn't add too much volume, while at the same time provides a richer context to our readers. :-)

If reliable sources on the subject are found, an article on the administrative subdivisions of the RSK -or its geography in general- could be interesting. However, it would be something entirely different from this simple list of towns. Its potential creation & writting would be entirely independent of this bare list's existence as a separate entry.

I really think that currently this list would be of more help to our readers if placed within the main article on the RSK. Of course, at a future time, it could always be moved to a more specific article, if one is created.

If seeing the above diff changes your mind -or not-, please consider revisiting that discussion to comment on this approach, and so help establish some degree of consensus. :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp's comments

Would you like to comment here? Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and Spade

I noticed that you said this was published by a reliable publisher. That is because just before I AfD'd it, someone added a claim that it was published by Sage. That's wrong, it's published by Associated for Bible Research [1]. dougweller (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for having the courage to tread in the no-man's-land of Talk:Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II. All parties involved, including myself, have TLDR'ed it nearly to death - which has discouraged badly-needed neutral input. arimareiji (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SBS Transit Service 579

In this AfD, you added a note saying that the nomination may be defective. I didn't see any problem with the nom, but if you did see one, what was it? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland prior to independence

On the category renaming point, I made a new suggestion and would welcome your thoughts. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BD

Hi. I just saw your message. Two more users have contacted me for the same reason. You can read the discussion in my talk page. As you can see my bot is not substituting Lifetime but just BD. BD is a bad redirect because it's name doesn't show that it uses defaultsort. BIRTH-DEATH-SORT is better. The lack of the information causes many editors to get confused and add defaultsort again. A very recent example is this one but they are more and I sometimes add these examples in Template talk: Lifetime. Moreover, I would like to inform you that there is no consensus for a preferable method, to go and substitute everything with one method against the other is something nonconstructive, it will make no difference what people see on the screen. It's like something runs AWB just to move stubs to the bottom of an article. Finally, I informed about my actions and thoughts in Template talk:Lifetime. I have made comments about everything concerning this template, warned about possible issues. You can participate in there to help us. If you like I can send the subject of BD to Redirects for Discussion (RfD) before continuing (or not) with by bot but I think the reasons I am substituting are clear and are a result of the discussion for Lifetime.

Replacing BD with Lifetime is ok to me. for the moment at least. The important thing right now is to get rid of BD and handle Lifetime later. So, edits for replacing BD are constructive. On the other hand, replacing DEFAULTSORT+the 2 categories with Lifetime has no consensus and I think is nonconstructive. When a new article is created you can use your prefereable method to add categories but please don't replace existing categories with Lifetime. After all, why Wikipedia has to render the categories each time someone load the article? Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a manner of speaking, BD has already been merged with Lifetime. It is only a redirect to Lifetime. So you may continue to use {{Lifetime}} just not the shortcut BD. Cheers! DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the second time you have referred to this work as vandalism, which, whatever your point of view on using a template for categories, it most certainly is not. That to me is a personal attack and I think you should rewrite it immediately. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You may remove this message if you like. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly advice

Hi again. I understand that you may be upset with my substitutions. I would like to recommend you to stay cool when the editing gets hot. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My steps were the following: I informed in the talk page of Lifetime that they are problems with BD, after some time I asked to be removed and I was adviced to create a bot. I applied for a bot and after a more than a month the bot was approved. I informed the talk page of Lifetime again. Many editors have seen it, including some of the people implementing AWB. Anyway, I am pretty sure that your problem is not BD itself but you want to keep Lifetime in articles, maybe if I was just renaming BD with Lifetime, you wouldn't have problem but I find many pros in completely substituting. Anyway, I hope we solve this by cooperating and calm discussion. Right now I am a bit tired, it's already late in here. Have a nice day/evening. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 29 in rail transport

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Townson (producer)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robert Townson (producer), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Robert Tounson. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I made one easily reversible edit because of what the bot said. I would hardly say that calls for a request to be left alone by me. I was correctly informed by the bot, I just didn't know that you were working on a complex of articles, and that the searchbot's message would soon be irrelevant. It removed the bot's message. I will certainly be more careful to look for multi-article editing in the future as I'm sure you will assume my good-faith in the future. I find it incivil of you to characterize my actions as "messing around".Synchronism (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check a discussion in Template talk:Lifetime

Hi. Please check a discussion in Template talk:Lifetime and write your opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial revolution

What do you think of this table, Sir? Wallonia#The second industrial Power of the World I have also other figures and many "clever" tables in the Rioux's book. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David C Watson AFD

"The above article (in David C C Watson) is currently subject to AFD." whats an AFD?--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD means people are discussing possibly deleting the article. Also, please leave messages at the BOTTOM of talk pages, as I suggested at your page. Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would like to work out this is the bottom of the page? I know it must be complicated for you, maybe theres a wiki article to explain this the bottom of a page you can read?--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You originally posted this at the top of Peterkingiron's talk page. Politzer moved it to the bottom. As you now know. dougweller (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

Peterkingiron, sorry for my earlier posting about AfD on your page. That user had been vandalizing so I was watching his contribs, and when I noticed him posting on your page I went to see what it was; in the process of moving the post down to the bottom of the page I saw that he was asking a relatively simple question so I figured I might as well answer it (at this point I still had some hope of turning this user into a constructive contributor); I didn't intend for it to cause a fight on your talk page. That user has begun trolling, though, and it's probably best just to ignore him; when I tried to explain editing to him he just removed all my messages from his talk page and came to attack me at my talk page, pretending that none of my previous edits had ever happened.

Best, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oregrounds iron

I understand what you mean. I just red an article of Göran Rydén (University of Upsala) about The Walloon method in Sweden. In French but even in French I am forced to make an effort in order to understand the technical terms. You suggest me to create a category as for instance Walloon diaspora. I would erase the categories Wallonia and History of Wallonia. I erase now the latter. But, on the other hand, it is true the Walloon influence remained great during 17th 18th centuries according many authors I red? What do you think? Finally it became a myth. It is probabely better to make a page about Walloons of Sweden orsomething else (family names, religion, industry, the importance of the myths...). Merry Christmas and I begg your pardon... José Fontaine (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Americans and American football

Hi. Just so you know, when you made your comment in this CfD you were mistaken. Assuming you meant people from the United States when you said "Americans", you are wrong. Americans are not the only ones that play American football. Nor are they the only ones that call a sport football that is not soccer. Canadians and Europeans do as well.--Rockfang (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parishes again

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of Wales Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of Europe Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of North America

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. "Parish" has different meanings in different localities. All categories should be clear if they contain civil (or geographical) parishes or church parishes. Note that this discussion of the same question (closed to divide the question) resulted in 5 Support rename votes, 1 Oppose vote, and 2 that abstained on most categories. I have looked at much more than these pages listed and the categories do all reflect civil parishes.--Carlaude ^(talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the English parishes were changed without opposition.
Please note well, and Support if you can.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain a little what you meant by this senetnce in your opinion about the name change to the parishes? "No strong view on rest, but I see no need to change, since (except in the Channel Isles), parishes do not have local authority status.". In particular, I am surprised by the comment that these parish entities have no local authority status? Perhaps you mean that they have no second-level status which Districts or boroughs would have, but they do, as far as I know, have a status in the hierarchy of local government. DDStretch (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change, but I do think they have some local authority status and powers, as they can levy a small (1p) rate from time to time. They do, however, get what powers they have handed down to them by the higher-level district or borough authority in which they are located. this page from the National Association for Local Councils website lists what powers they have. Do you think they are insufficient to give them local authority status? DDStretch (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These other pages give more details: here and a document to be downloaded from here. DDStretch (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on your comment regarding categorization of villages. Did you mean only place the article into Villages in xxx when they are not also a community/parish or could an article like Burton, Pembrokeshire in your opinion be categorized as both?

Singing in the Spirit

I've created a redirect to Spontaneous worship#Singing in the Spirit but the article still needs improving and sourcing - please contribute. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Hotel, Halton

Saved; thanks for your support. I intend to expand the article some time. My immediate motive for writing the article was that it was the only Grade II* listed building in Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire (which is currently a FLC) without an article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. This is a bit different as it was a purpose-built courthouse replacing the gatehouse (although of course previously the court had been in the gatehouse itself). In our neighbouring village of Daresbury, the former courthouse is adjacent to the pub, and has been integrated into the pub. There's all sorts of combinations! I have a few local sources which may help in the future expansion of the article. I'll have to explore when it became a hotel/pub; I guess sometime during the 19th century when the town of Runcorn itself was growing. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User categories

That's three times now you've incorrectly called for a speedy close to my CfD nominations. Do you know what a user category is? PC78 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State cabinet secretaries of Puerto Rico

As the creator of Category:State cabinet secretaries of Puerto Rico, I would like to thank you for your proposals regarding the CfD discussion regarding that category, which I partially agree with. On the issue of which parent category it should be included in, I have presented two proposals of my own, on how to resolve the issue. For further details, please see the aforementioned CfD discussion page. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Sir Edward Wortley Montagu to Edward Wortley Montagu (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)

I am not at all clear why you have changed the title of this article. The previous name was perfectly acceptable, but I supsect that you are an American, who does not know that persons with knighthoods are incorrectly addressed if their name is not prefixed by "Sir". Furthermore, being a Lord of the Treasury was only a short event in a long career. Why not Edward Wortley Montagu (Ambassador)? Articles on British politicians normally incorporate their title as a peer (if they had one), even if it was only granted at the end of their life. Would you be kind enough to undo your interfering? Just because Americans have no significant titles of honour, there is no reason why you should engage in imperialissm to force your views on other coutries. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand and appreciate your vexation at such a seemingly inappropriate change. I did elucidate the reason for the move in the article's revision history and you may also glance at the Edward Montagu (disambiguation) page, which has as its initial entry, Sir Edward Montagu, not Sir Edward Montagu. Similarly, even such familiar personalities as Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Philip Sidney are named without their knighthoods in the main title headers of their Wikipedia articles. As I've indicated, the Wikipedia Manual of Style directive regarding these matters is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage #5. Titles of Knighthood. You are, indeed, correct that "articles on British politicians normally incorporate their title as a peer", but solely in a specifically circumscribed form, i.e., "Sir Edward Hyde East, 1st Baronet". Stand-alone salutations, honorifics and knighthoods are not utilized in the context of Wikipedia. As to the parenthetical qualifier, it was simply a judgment call in using what appeared the most distinguished title. If the already-existing redirect, Edward Wortley Montagu (diplomat), or not-yet-in-existence Edward Wortley Montagu (ambassador), Edward Wortley Montagu (MP) or the full Edward Wortley Montagu (Member of Parliament) seems more fitting, than such a move can also be effected. If you have additional concerns in this matter, I would welcome further communication.—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fee tail

I have re-added your para on literary examples, plus some more - see the talk. Let's keep an eye on it in case the lawyers try to remove it again! Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Grey (died 1709)

I am a newbie, and would like to know the reasons behind adding "died 1709" to John Grey's name in the article's title. --BlackZeroes (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Please bear with me for asking rather trivial questions: Isn't the use of date of death in suffix as disambiguator a bit unusual for Wikipedia? Are there other examples where date of death was used in suffix as disambiguator? Also, has this thing discussed elsewhere on WP? --BlackZeroes (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early Jewish Christians

Peter, please see Category talk:Early Hebrew Christians as you may be interested following the recent CFD on Jewish Christians. I'm inclined to follow another editor's recommendation to replace it with "1st century Christians of Jewish descent". - Fayenatic (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power weaving

Actually in hand- but I am being diverted a bit by the battle I am fighting with Wikipedia:Non-free content, and in particular deletion proposals for Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 22.(please do comment- if you wish) I have been writing a mill template so I can spread some of the images onto separate pages. Template:Infobox Mill building‎. The textile machine industry was plagued with patents, and patent wars and who invented what still stirs passions today. viz Arkwright. Looms seems to be no exception- but I have discovered a excellent online source of 19th century books at [2], so good that it is also a distraction. I have details on the Roberts loom and the Northrop loom but it will take a little longer to put it together. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greville

Google the name and you'll hit some...interesting...threads, mostly on genealogy message boards, about him. I'm just nervous that he'll show up and insist on having an article about himself, not realizing that BLP can't protect him from his own history. It's fascinating the gyrations some people go through (on both sides of the Atlantic) trying to connect themselves to the nobility. Choess (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Bedford

I'm reverting your addition of "William Russell, Lord Russell (1639--1683) (Courtesy title)" to the list of dukes. Maybe such lists ought to include everyone who was ever an heir-apparent to a peerage, but generally they don't. Inclusion in this form suggests to the casual reader that he was a duke who bore the style "Lord Russell" in place of a ducal title! —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about putting Lord Russell in "See also"? —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a policy matter that ought to be discussed broadly. —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MP succession boxes

Hi, I had actually always used and preferred the form you have suggested, and had also usually replaced other variants with it, unless I noticed increasingly more new boxes with the "alongside field" in the last days. Although I personally dislike this field - it makes the box unnecessary wide - I decided, I believe it was two days ago, to switch to it, generally on articles where it already existed or where I inserted a new box. I had presumed it a new standard, however your notice shows me, that that might apparently be not so. In future I will avoid the field again and convert it, if I will come across it (naturally only on UK/British articles). Thanks for your message and by the way you might also drop a note to User:BrownHairedGirl, as I remember that she has used the "alongside field" too. Regards

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have a little annotation too. :-) On your example, I have seen, that you have inserted the contemporary sitting MPs into the "years field" (the same what the "alongside field" does and another thing what bothered me at it), while it is otherwise always added in the "title field" - after the constituency. Perhaps you could modify this on your template. Greetings

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See a thread I have started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#alongside_parameter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spelling: fibre/fiber

Sure. Would love to. If you would let me know which article you're referencing. Cheers. Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 12:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeway and Flangeway - which is which?

Please have a look at Talk:Wagonway and Wagonway and see if explanatory text regarding this difference is correct. Tabletop (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Fawkener

Do you have any idea what the maternity was of his daughters? I've been beating the bushes on Google Books trying to figure out, and the only thing I can find is that he seems to have had a second wife named Elizabeth. Choess (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove it, but I'm inclined to think that Shoemaker just botched that particular date, and he's referring to the duel of 22 May 1786 between Fawkener and Townshend. The trial for criminal conversation also occurred in 1786. Choess (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Gazette

Hi Peter, when refering to the London Gazette you can use the following template <ref> {{ LondonGazette | issue = | startpage = | date = | accessdate = }} </ref> . As startpage you should enter the number given in the "Go to Page" - field, and not the number of the page within the respective issue (like I did some time), to avoid wrong links. Especially in later years, both numbers can differ very extremly ... Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, sorry, I didn't want sound bluff, it was only meant as a suggestion - by the way, I have another one :-) Provided you edit Wikipedia with Firefox as browser and you don't know it already, you might find this addon [3] interesting; it's not only a very good solution to store, sort and use templates, but also offers other helpfull features. Regards

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at [4] you will see that the number of the page within the issue is 24, while the number given in the "Go to Page" - field is 1752. Going out apparently from the 19th century all pages of the issues of one year were linked under ongoing numbers, so when using the first number in the template, unfortunately it will not lead to page 24, but to page 1 of the issue. I hope I'have explained it more understandable ... Greetings

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian nationalism

I particularily appreciated your proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 16 about moving Veneto nationalism to Venetian nationalism, and the category likewise. I asked an administrator to make these moves as I think that they are fairly uncontroversial, anyway I would appreciate to see your opinion at Talk:Veneto nationalism. --Checco (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Windham Carmichael-Anstruther, 8th Baronet

Hi Peter

Thanks for responding to my request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Thomas_Cochrane.2C_10th_Earl_of_Dundonald for help with Sir Windham Carmichael-Anstruther, 8th Baronet.

Most of what you did looks great (thanks!), but I was puzzled by the first bit of this edit, in which you replaced a direct link to the relevant page on Leigh Rayment's website with the generic {{rayment-hc}}. I can see no advantage in a less specific link, so I have reinstated the more precise one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Roman society

The original page split (which created the article in question) was reversed in July and I felt that it was not something to push with the editor that seemed most vested in the article. Everything you said...I agree with, especially the part about the "Military" section. Unfortunately there are some "Ownership" issues with that particular article and I have decided not to edit there further. We were able stay cool and not edit war and I actually like the editor who reversed it. We have worked together since then and I value his contributions to my articles and adopted articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Imhotep

Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to resubmit this article once I have sorted out the issues with the references.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters.

Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first! I won't do this again.

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Wikipedia does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?

--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clent Hills

Hi Peter, if you have written, contributed to, or edited the Clent Hills article, please take a moment to see: Talk:Clent Hills. --Kudpung (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Hot 100

It's kind of clumsy to have "singles" twice in the title, but "(name of chart) number-one singles" is the standard for Number-one singles categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly papal congregations → former Roman Catholic church buildings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Roman Catholic" is much clearer term than "papal." In the Middles Ages, the date of church buildings may be more readily determinied than the date of the congregations, if different. This will also give the category a parallel name to like categories, e.g. of the 13th, 14th, and 15th century.-- Carlaude ^talk 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all to equivalent church building categories (only): Firstly "papal" is in accurate since the churches were not established by any pope, but usually founded by a manorial lord and consecrated by the diocesan bishop, without any involvement from Rome. Secondly, any church built in England in the 11th, 12th or 13th century will have been Catholic until the Reformation and then Protestant (unless is was a dissolved monastery). "Congregations" is also rubbish, since the articles will essentially be about the buildings, though possibly also about the present congregations that worship in them. This is a bare-faced attempt by papists to colonise the Church of England builings. The same would apply to Lutheran Churches in Germany. I failed to find the alleged Italian example, but it should not appear, since the headnote of all three says it is about Protestant church buildings. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way— while you are voting to Upmerge— all your arguments exacly favor the proposed rename. The renames proposes (as no one seems to notice) is to [[:Category:##th-century former Roman Catholic church buildings]]. I am also curous what you mean by "papists"? Do you mean a Roman Catholics or anti-Roman Catholics? --Carlaude ^talk 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hagley

Hi Peterkingiron/Archive 2! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see [[talk:Hagley]. --Kudpung (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for films by length

The nomination has been expanded since you commented, so you may want to revisit the CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

River teme

Hi Peter. As you probably know, I've been going through hundreds of Worcestershire related articles in order to give the Worcs project a kick start and highlight some articles that may be in need of some improvement. My own areas of expertise are education, and the Malverns, but I have now arrived at the River Teme. I'm an outsider on waterways, therefore after having read the article from a 'visitor' angle, and then reading the long debate on the talk page, I have come to the personal conclusion that the section on Commercial navigation has become more of a 550 word debate on which publications are right and which are erroneous. I'm not sure if all this is of interest to someone wanting basic encyclopedic information. I don't doubt the sincerity of all concerned with research for the verifiable published material, but I would personally be satisfied with with a short mention something on the lines of: While it is possible that some stretches of the river have been navigable in earlier times, this remains a subject of continued research by experts on the subject. I would be inclined to leave it at that, with references to all the verifiable published works and let the readers make their own minds up. See: Talk:River Teme where I have left a note.--Kudpung (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Newport, 1st Baron Torrington

Hi Peter, thanks for the correction - apparently I have looked at the wrong headline. Obviously I need someone occasionally watching my fingers. Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the only one - yet; so you have prevented possible future error already at the root. The book I had used has on the relevant page two headlines: above "Commissioners of Customs, Excise and Stamps, &c. in England" and below and a little bit smaller "Commisssioners of Customs in England". (Perhaps I have also a problem with my eyes). Unfortunately I was futhermore lazy and haven't scrolled down more, otherwise I would have surely discovered that the next section begins with "Commissioners of Excise in England". :-)

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Two things more that should have catched my eyes ... time to buy glasses.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham-Kent

I have set up a move request; survey at Talk:Chatham-Kent#Survey. Perhaps you could move your recent comment to that section. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham-Kent, Ontario?

I already make comments at the CfD, And this is to the opposing users a deal, if everyone supported the rename back to the article name Chatham-Kent, Ontario to avoid confusion and we won't talk about renaming back again. Then the existing discussion from 2007 about renaming from Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Chatham-Kent will be removed from the section of the talk page. Then, after that, them maybe I or someone will withdrew the nomination out of the discussion. And on the talk page, I believed that User:Skeezix1000 has already agreed to move the article. So, could you write to User:Skeezix1000 on the user's talk page, that the user has "agreed" to rename Chatham-Kent that causes confusion. After you talk User:Skeezix1000 on the user's talk page, let me know if you talk to User:Skeezix1000 then everything will be settled and I or someone will withdrew out of the nomination out of the discussion. Then everything will be resolved quickly. Thanks for all the very hard discussion and I or someone will be withdrew out of the discussion soon. Steam5 (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Worcestershire (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi Peter! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as needing attention to references, style, updating, or further development. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:West Worcestershire (UK Parliament constituency), and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Steel

Steel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_Zero 12:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Worcestershire

Hi Peter! I am including you in this message because your previous comments on various issues have been most helpful. Since the recent creation of the Worcestershire project, several editors are making a 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. If you would also like to join the project as a member, please do not hesitate to do so - we need all the help we can get. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern, Worcestershire

Hi Peter. The parish is listed with the title Malvern Town Council in both the town council and the district websites, and it administers that parish. However, this effectively leaves the CP without another official name. Part of the problem arises because they are using old OS maps on their websites that show the names of different parts of Malvern in different font size hierarchies, that do not correspond accurately to today's situation. I think it's been established that my earlier suggestion some months ago for merging was rather hasty. The Malvern, Worcestershire article is of course the main one. Great Malvern since its merging with the independent urban district of Malvern Link in 1900, although probably the original town, has no legal status whatsoever today as a place. The area known today as Great Malvern, might be the town centre, but has no legal boundaries whatsoever, and is in fact cut in half by two council wards. It is therefore now simply a neighbourhood of Malvern, and the one that happens to contain the town centre. The articles about the other neighbourhoods such as Malvern Link and Barnards Green etc., should of course stay (in compliance with Wiki policy concerning named places). To merge them into Malvern would anyway make the Malvern article unduly long - much in the same way as the Malvern Water section was split off into its own new article. To get a complete overview however, it will need reading the entire talk page, in particular: Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Malvern Town vs Malvern Town Council vs Civil Parish, and the article in all its sections - many sections elaborate on, and complement the others. I would strongly oppose any suggestions for merging the Malvern, Worcestershire article with any others, or renaming it.--Kudpung (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksmith

Hello again...In your note on the CFD on smiths I noticed your dislike for the term profession, which is perfectly legitimate, but I noticed today that the blacksmith article's infobox states that a blacksmith is a profession. You might want to revise it, and any other of the smithing articles, if they are wrong. Regards! Wizard191 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pershore College

Hi Peterkingiron/Archive 2! 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) 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cofton Hackett

Hi Peter, See: Talk:Cofton Hackett A look at the article's revision history will show periods of sometimes more than 50 back-to-back edits in les than 30 minutes by an editor who copies and pastes much of the content - probably not even mouse-click copying but actually typing it all manually. Most of it is from sources that are either out of copyright (eg VCH), or orther Wiki articles. so although there is no direct copyvio, it's still not the way to create an article. An understanding of the editor's background will reveal that the work is most certainly done in good faith in the best of intentions, although from the hand of another, it would be bordering on vandalism. However, the Wikipedia, however sympathetic, cannot bend the rules for people with health related issues, in spite of their barnstars.--Kudpung (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evesham Technology

Hi Peterkingiron/Archive 2! 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) 09:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you call for closing a newly opened discussion thread...

I respectfully suggest that you review WT:NCNT#Name-Ordinal-Country construction revisited and reread the discussion there, just to make sure you understand the point being raised. It was probably very late where you are when you added your comment, and I will refrain from passing any judgment on the value of your contributions to the discussion. I just want to make sure my question is understood before its dismissal is advocated. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Thank you for your comment in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_30#Ottoman_Macedonia_.28Greece.2FROM.2FBulgaria.29. I would like you to look over subsequent discussion at this heading, as I think that the subcategorization of historical entities by modern state boundaries would set a terrible precedent that would affect tens or hundreds of thousands of articles. Thanks. --macrakis (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, there are only 10 members of the Worcs project and I have contacted them all. They represent pretty much the sum total of the active editors/contributors to all the county related articles. I don't mind touching base with anyone individually over a coffee somewhere before I return to Asia.--Kudpung (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Chris)[reply]

Understand

From you argument in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_9#Category:Female_basketball_players_by_century I would have guessed you meant "Keep" instead of "Merge". Debresser (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 9#Great Northern Railway

Tassedethe's preferred option is to use "United States"; did you mean to support this? --NE2 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew)

Since you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew), you might be interested in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cheers, Cunard (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peterkingiron. I just thought I'd respond here to a comment you made on the above AfD. When listing multiple pages, as in this case, the AfD notice only needs to be listed on the first-named article, as long as the others are listed at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion, as was done here. For verification, see WP:BUNDLE. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tinning

Hi Peterkingiron, I was wondering if you could help me out in this article. I've merged tinning and tinplate, but the history sections need to be synced. There are some discrepancies between the two and I can't view all of the sources. I know this is right up your alley, so I thought you might be able to help me out. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

It seems to me your argument in the (consequetive) discussions Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_19#Category:Chilean_scholars_and_academics and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_19#Scholars_and_academics contradict each other. Anyway, I agree with the latter. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dictators

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire meetup

Peter, it looks as if you are the only one interested. I am based in Malvern but if you wish we can me anywhere in the county. I fly back to Thailand on Thursday 3 oct. Do contact me by e-mailthrough Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandy

There are three places called Pandy in Wales. I think what you need is a disambiguation page

Pandy, Abergavenny, Gwent
Pandy, Llangollen, Clwyd
Pandy, Llanbrynmair, Powys

An equivalent action would be to merge Avon into River because Avon just means 'river' in Welsh. JMcC (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood. I had thought that there was a proposal to merge Pandy with fulling because the meaning was the same in the two languages. Quite correctly when you now type in "Pandy" into search box, you get a list of all possible meanings of this word including the odious Andy Pandy. No-one is going to type "Pandy (disambiguation)". In the Pandy article there is now also a mention that the word is the Welsh for a fulling mill and this links to the fulling article. This is sufficient. This means that Pandy no longer should redirect to the article on Fulling. The following sentence is no longer necessary "Pandy" redirects here. For other uses, see Pandy (disambiguation)." Instead an extra link should be added in the sentence "The Welsh word for a fulling mill is pandy." You can now also zap Pandy (disambiguation) as superfluous.JMcC (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else also had the idea that typing in Pandy should get you to the page about fulling. I have reversed it as we agreed. Obviously in Welsh Wikipedia Pandy should give an article on fulling, but in en-wiki almost everyone will want a list of places called Pandy in Wales. JMcC (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to comment on Permanent Way

Greetings. I added a few comments to the discussion that you contributed to [5]. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered you in small part. (I looked up your question on cast iron wheels, but alas, my set of Oxford's "A History of Technology", where I expected to find the answer, is incomplete.) Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire

Peter, please accept my apologies for the confusion. Anyway, my super AOL/BT broadband has been down for four days, and I'm flying back home to Thailand tomorrow, Saturday, 3 oct.--Kudpung (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry we could not make it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading the details of the case, I of course assume, because John William Willis-Bund was a Worcestershire man, that his views were correct and the Welsh gang were wrong ;-o -- PBS (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke I thought I could share with you on your talk page, but I have removed it from the talk page of the man, because there are bound to be people who will see it as offensive and I don't want to offend anyone. -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp mills

Wind-powered stamp mills exist, such as this one in France. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

River categories

I have added an alternative propsal to a few of the river categories' nominations. I think it has much merit. Please visit the discussion(s) again and add your commentary/opinion. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your specialty

Hello, thanks for your input on the Clare matter. I agree with you. On another topic, I notice your specialty in the iron industry. I was wondering if perhaps you also have an interest in the early ironmasters of Sussex, who were behind the casting of the first iron cannons. I know the industry later moved away from the Weald in search of cheaper and more plentiful sources of power for the blast furnaces, but I'm interested in the evolution of it. If this is your area of specialty, are there any online sources you might recommend? Many thanks. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't asking you to share the things you've created outside of WP, but as I've written on the subject of the Wealden ironmasters, I was simply wondering what the best online sources are, or for that matter any books on the subject. I have a history degree and a longstanding interest in the subject. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the references. I had actually looked at some of these before and cited them in a previous wikipedia piece. [6] Take care. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This article is more my speciality, as well as my professional background. [7] By the way, I certainly concur with your statement about wikipedia needing all the responsible editors it can get. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over the William Levett piece. It's been quite awhile since I've revisited it, and I'll consider your suggestions with care. I did read some of the sources you mentioned during its preparation, but couldn't find them in online format and so didn't cite them. I will now. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions and ultimate solution to the Earl of Clare page. Mugginsx (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 20#Rulers in Europe by century

This CfD has genarated a lot of talk but only one vote. Nor has anyone proposed an alternative to my proposal. Please read and consider voting. Thanks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you prefer having viceroys and regents mixed in with monarchs, and not just in their own category?
By the way a monarch can "have various titles — king or queen, prince or princess... emperor or empress... or even duke or grand duke" and the many other titles as listed in two charts later in the same article. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated before (9:08 pm, 21 October) I still do not understand what you are suggesting. Your statements conflict. How would "rulers... make a... parent, for monarchs, head of government" at all? How would we "reverse merge" and yet "these... be parent categories, with few actual articles"? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it would be like this?

Category:10th-century rulers

Category:10th-century rulers in Europe

Category:10th-century monarchs in Europe

Category:10th-century rulers in Asia

Category:10th-century monarchs in Asia

If so then I will point out that that is the way it is arranged now-- at least for the categories under discussion. If we did a "reverse merge" per your vote then it would undo most of this. If you want it to be like this then you should change your vote to "keep." PS-- I do not understan your comments re a "continuing monarchs category" either. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traditional/folk music world-wide

Thanks for your helpful and perceptive comments re discussion of this category. The thing is unsatisfactory but your remarks point very much in the direction things could go. You'll understand that many music articles are run by single-issue editors who have no interest in the "big picture" and are unable to see the hundreds of similar articles that have already been sorted out of some, say, too general category, or who feel importance is boosted by including "nested" duplicate categories. There are categories that overlap, that use different terminologies ("style" versus "genre" etc.) whose names are not clear and so forth. Nothing can be done at category level, it seems, without unanimity, and authoritative sources are not required. I obviously do not like to do all the sorting while knowing I am leaving the same difficulties to happen again. Your interest is very welcome and, if it strays towards this wiki-area in particular, I'd value your thoughts. Redheylin (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to add that the matter of category and genre looks, from below, a matter of importance: it really matters to some that the music be labelled "folk", not "traditional", or vice versa - sometimes for opposite reasons at the same time. The name I selected was designed purely to forestall the kind of rude objections you'll discover on my page. These matters often conceal POV forks in near-duplicate material. Redheylin (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Wombwell (disambiguation)

Hello. Just to let you know that this has been nominated for speedy deletion, with {db-disambig}. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the Horse

I appreciate your contribution to the new discussion on changing magister equitums, and thought your comment in the earlier discussion received insufficient attention. I've been working to get the error corrected since October 24. Since my tone and objectives have been misconstrued in this matter, I wanted to leave you a note to make it clear that my response to your most recent comment was meant to clarify, not be argumentative. Your perspective is helpful and very welcome. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapentakes ...

Hello Peterkingiron. If you have a moment, can you revisit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 31#Category:Hundreds of Yorkshire and check whether you would be happy with a change to the format "Category:Ancient subdivisions of X" or not? If not, I shall likely relist the discussion as while there is consensus to rename there wouldn't be agreement on how best to do this. Many thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, someone beat me to it, so it turned out to be moot anyway. But many thanks for getting back to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination)

Hello! Concerning this article, please see here, i.e. the specific topic is the title of at least one book. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI-- 20th-century people by nationality again

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_19#Category:20th-century Indian people/Category:21st-century Indian people: Category:20th-century Indian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Category:21st-century Indian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Nominator's rationale: Extremely redundant and unnecessary. In addition, it has been created to include only notable people (according to the creator), which is laughable because he adds it only to articles of people he considers notable personalities (both categories contain only a few names), even though they are not. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per recent and consistent past consensus here. This has been disscussed twice in the last few months. See the August 14 and June 29 CfDs Isn't there a limit to how many times this can be done? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byron

I am concerned that what is happening with Byron and Tennyson is people are trying to get around standard classification used by many, many groups because of whatever reason (they don't like it?) instead of changing the naming convention in general. I am afraid that people are taking a discussion that was based on having someone like Samuel Clemens being named as Mark Twain on his page (as the library choose to classify him as Mark Twain) and using it to rationalize these ideas. Perhaps there should be an RfC to put in the author's naming convention that classification by libraries (like the Library of Congress) has a lot of weight when determining names? Then, at least, we would be more in line with more prominent encyclopedias and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

«each of the 13 Barons Byron also used the title of whom several were notable enough to have an article in WP» — Actually, now all 13 Barons have articles, as do some of their relatives. Enjoy! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

«naval officers are not "military"» — That may be partly TransAtlantic differences in English dialects, and partly time differences. Without doubt it applied to the time and place setting of the article you edited, a 19th century Royal Navy officer's bio. In modern US-speak (see Wiktionary's wikt:military), military covers all the armed forces including navy, not just ground forces, and I suspect this is an overall trend rather than a growing split. I could be wrong. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you! (At last! Someone who can explain themself, AND does explain themself.) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Walden (disambiguation)

Hello. Just to let you know, this dab's been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. I've added a hatnote to the redlink and blue link it's mentioned on to the primary page. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Best wishes and keep up all your good work, Boleyn3 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of France and of Navarre

Hello! The discussion is also taking place at Talk:Louis XVIII of France#Roi de France et de Navarre. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern - GA nomination

Hi Peter ! We now have a first review for GA. On the whole it doesn't look too bad. As you know, 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 to have a GA of this envergure in its repertoire. See Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#GA Review - and Happy New Year!--Kudpung (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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--Kudpung (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. Thanks for your comments. However, at this stage it is probably better to address and fix the reviewer's requirements than to search and find more fault with the article that none of us can fix within the time limit. .Worse articles than this have passed GA. Basically any new points raised now will just mean wholesale slaughter of chunks of the text, unless you can find fixes for them.--Kudpung (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. I think we have reached the point where all the reviewer's original points have been addressed. Apart from proof reading and correcting any glaring errors, let's try to achieve GA with the article as is. See the revierwers latest comment at Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1#Next_set_of_comments. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern Girls College - Malvern St James

I could probably rework this article without much difficulty. A suggestion would be to name it Malvern St James, with a redirect from Malvern Girls College. However, I'm very tied up at the moment with the Malvern article and I'm going to away for a couple of days this week.--Kudpung (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this to you, when you have time: it does not seem urgent. The redirect would be created automatically by moving it. My comment was intedned to stimulate the main anonymous editor to get to work. Certainly Malvern is more important. If there are more issues to be tackeled on that, note it on the GA talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a draft article ready for the move. You are most welcome to check it out at User:Kudpung/Malvern St James (draft)

John Hanbury (1664-1734)

Thanks, but I wasn't sure on how to name the article. Other pages had the link to Hanbury had him as Hanbury (the elder), but the problem was that Hanbury is the second John Hanbury from the family. Some books mention him as John Hanbury II and his grandson as John Hanbury III, but it doesn't seem to be their birth names. If you can disambiguate him better than birth dates, which aren't great, then I'd appreciate it. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

slightly confusing typo

I'm always risking Muphry's Law when I say something like this, but your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corsham regis says "the rest solution" instead of (I assume) "the best solution". I figured it was worth mentioning, since it makes it a little bit difficult to figure out the meaning. tedder (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGC Malvern, Worcestershire

Hi Peterkingiron/Archive 2! It has been suggested that an article you have created, edited, or commented on be moved and renamed. You are invited to join the debate and leave your opinion here: Talk:Malvern Girls' College#Move

Malvern

Hi Peter. Some of the content of the Malvern article, especially the intro, was written as a workaround (rather than invite an argument) to the rather strong comments of one user who asserted that Malvern is just not a place or a civil parish, or 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 very competent in the use of editing tools, has an extraordinary history of conflict, often bordering on WP:CIVIL. 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 in a catastrophic state and desperately need attention. 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, 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) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the reviewer's points have been addressed now, and are waiting for her final verdict. I've also changed the intro slightly according to your suggestions. But that will have to be the stop for edits now for a day or two.--Kudpung (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern GA, failing...

Hi Peter,

Gyro and Wotnow 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 were able to chime in and do anything 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. Other than correcting the references, please do not make any other edits at this stage.

Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershierre, Warwickshierre, and Everyshierre

Hello Peterkingiron/Archive 2! 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) 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CONGRATULATIONS!

You are now the proud owner of this badge - wear it with pride :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Malvern, Worcestershire to good article status.

I concur. You played an important role in this project. Well done and thanks. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirects

Hi! You said here that category redirects require someone to patrol them to keep them empty. There must be some misunderstanding – as far as I can tell, this is being performed by RussBot (talk · contribs), so no human patrolling is needed. (There may be other bots on the task as well.) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masjid Umar Leicester

I discovered that Masjid Umar Leicester had been shortlisted for a religious architecture award, so I added that to the article. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masjid Umar Leicester. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Academy of Music

I will supply the phrase I added this afternoon with two references and than we could discuss your second remark. The King was involved in founding the corporation and the online information, a database under construction (select the year 1719) could answer your question. If not, I might hear from you again. Greetings from Amsterdam. P.S. This page is very heavy!Taksen (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Kosovo relations

This article has been renominated for deletion by User:Libstar. Since you took the time to comment in the first discussion, you deserve to be notified of the situation. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political candidates

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Industrial revolution

I imported an old edit from the Nostalgia Wikipedia; see User:Graham87/Import for the reason why I moved the page to the MediaWiki talk namespace. In my opinion, documenting each import I do on the talk page of every article would just cause unnecessary clutter. Graham87 04:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrought iron revision

Hi Peterkingiron, I just wanted to let you known about this rev to wrought iron. I think you were the one who wrote this paragraph, and it seems pretty legit to me so I'd like it to stay. However, I think you'll be able to find refs for much more easily than me (plus they'll be better). Thanks for the help. Wizard191 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Wizard191 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Haldane and toplink to non-article?

I'm dubious about maintaining that link at the top of the article to another article that doesn't exist. So I thought - the best way to resolve is to create the James Haldane (diplomat) article... But there doesn't seem to be much to base it on: I can see the two redlink traces to diplomatic missions to Russia and then the Palatinate but Googling isn't turning up anything beyond that. Unless there's some decent sources out there, it looks like a non-biography that will forever remain a redlink? AllyD (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting link. (ThePeerage can be surprisingly useful.) And see also Clan Haldane (rather shouty and under-wikified as it is). I'll maybe think about filling our the stub article some more. AllyD (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

news

British English 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) 12:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 17:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kudpung (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newent

Hi Peterkingiron, Newent apparently overlooks Derwent Valley. Good observation. Thanks.Daytrivia (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equestrians by century

Hi Peter

Could I trouble you to take a look at my reply to your comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 25#Equestrians_by_century?

I did some checking on the category structure, and I don't think that your concerns are any reason to delay merger. Maybe you could comment at CFD to say whether I have persuaded you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having been away, I did not get a chance to contribute further before the CFD was closed. However, I do not see a major issue. One just needs to be careful to ensure that a category does not inadvertently pick up disparate subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runnymede categories

Sorry Peter, but I don't think that your suggestion works, because we have a clash here of several different naming conventions. It took me a while to unravel it all, but see my reply at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 6#Category:Runnymede. I'll be interested to hear what you make of my effort to untangle it all ... and I hope that my comment is not completely incomprehensible! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riparian

Do you really think that fluvial flooding and identifying the authorities with a responsibility for dealing with it is a trivial matter? Motmit (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wortley Top Forge

Can you cast your mind back to 26 May 2006....? (LOL :o) )

It's OK, I'll give you a hand: this edit introduced a curious phrasing into the second sentence of the second paragraph -- and it's still there!

"A forge (or both of them was probably...

The bracket is never closed, and I can't work out what was intended, so I rather hoped that you, as the author, might be able to revisit the text some time?

An anon editor has just applied a lot of wikilinks, so I've removed a few surplus, but I haven't tackled the text otherwise.

EdJogg (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just tidying up the ToDo and revisited this task.

A fresh visit to the text made it clear -- NOW I understand!! Have applied an appropriate fix.

Done -- EdJogg (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

de Clare

I know this may seem like a recurring nightmare to you, I know it does to me, but a dispute is starting up again on another de Clare website between MarmadukePercy and myself. It is the article entitled de Clare. So far, Dr. (editor) Charles Matthews has successfully warned, intervened and re-styled the incorrect re-phrasing of my work and the moving of my citation into a sentence where it did not belong by another editor Tamfang, encouraged by Marmaduke. Dr. Matthews edits were, of course, not challenged and the incorrect re-phrasing by Tamfang was reverted, though his warnings not always heeded as noted in the de Clare Talkpage where she jumps around, adds sarcasism and sometimes uses bizarre phrases. You will recall your intervention and resolution of the Earl of Clare dispute and I might add, despite the fact that you ruled against me, you did so in a fair way and I could not and did not disagree with you. To return to this current problem in the article entitled de Clare, my only other addition besides the geneology is the Coat of Arms paragraph. Both Dr. Matthews, Agricolae and I agreed that, since this article contains generations of de Clares, a brief explanation was in order as to the Coat of Arms since it was not always in usage and in fact changed over the generations. I provided one, and it is well-sourced, one source being the British Archaeological Journal, available on Google Books online, and an e-mail from Patrick Webley, Honorary Abbey Registrar, Tewkesbury Abbey which I quoted verbatim. This is apparently not enough for Marmaduke. His reasoning is flawed as a quick look at other de Clare articles show that he has never challenged the de Clare website used as a source in places, certainly not the same quality of my recent sources. In fact, the first source I got from Agricolae, who is a walking encyclopedia on things medieval is the source I used!. Unbelievably, Marmaduke is now asking Agricolae to give a source when the source is right before him, saying my source (the same) is not sufficient. Will you please take at the de Clare Talk page and see what I and Dr. Matthews have had to contend with and make a comment? I think this time you will side with me and Chris Matthews, as I have done my due diligence before inserting the material. As I have said previously, the current material Marmaduke is questioning is in the Coat of Arms section. Needless to say, no one has contested Charles Matthews work as it is a flawless rephrasing of mine with an addition of other scholarly sources and facts. Thank you for any help you are willing to give. If you are going to have a discussion, would you please do so on the de Clare Article Talk page so I can find it? You know, the pity of this is that all I want to do is editing interesting articles without conflict and I do so on many other articles, but whenever the name de Clare comes up, I am sure to find conflict, admittedly some of it through my inexperience, although I have always apologized if I was wrong. I have learned a lot since the earl of clare days, my first article, but I realize I still have a lot to learn. This time I think you will find in my favor. I was very careful. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, both in the title and in the article. It is entitled de Clare. I know it is confusing with all the de Clare articles, but this article only has one title: de Clare. Sorry for any confusion, perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. Mugginsx (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I did add the website to the Journal. Also, I failed to say that the gentlemen in the e-mail is employed by Tewkesbury Abbey and quoted from the records of the Abbey in which the stain glass window resides. Anyway, thanks for your advice and help. Mugginsx (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Dr. Matthews has edited out the information given by Patrick Webley, Honorary Abbey Registrar, there will be no further need for his information though I will know for the future the information you provided. thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Toll roads in the United Kingdom

Hi there. Several months ago, I moved 'Toll roads in the United Kingdom' to 'Toll roads in England' for two reasons: the article was virtually all about England anyway, and I wanted the articles to be able to deal with toll roads prior to the creation of the United Kingdom. No one objected to the change at the time. In the past few days, I felt I should make a start to writing an article about Toll roads in Scotland, but it became clear that readers looking for details about toll roads would have to be helped to find the correct article - I therefore changed 'Toll roads in the United Kingdom' from being a redirect page to 'Toll roads in England' to an article that gave the links to the choice of articles that may be what the reader was looking for. I then made a start to 'Toll roads in Scotland'.

I'm afraid I don't see how I have destroyed any article - I have tried to be helpful, and, when I get a chance, would hope to develop the articles. I agree that it is a good idea for Toll roads in Northern Ireland to be redirected to 'Toll roads in Ireland'. Perhaps it is also a good idea for 'Toll roads in England' to be moved to 'Toll Roads in England and Wales'. I don't see how deleting any article will make things better or clearer for readers.

Hope my comments are helpful - please get in touch again if I have not explained my thinking clearly. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I claim no particular knowledge in this field. I can see logic in having a 'Toll roads in England and Wales' article and a 'Toll roads in Great Britain' article would make sense if a toll road ever existed that crossed the border. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Broadcasting stations

You have recently participated in discussion at an AFD for a broadcast station. I have recently posted the above topic on the talk page of the notability guideline for organizations and companies, to see if there is interest in adding language related to the notability of radio and TV broadcast stations to that guideline. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where to request such a permanent protection of the redirect page against the conversion back to the old version? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection would be the obvious place, but I'm not sure that it will be granted without evidence that there is actually a need for more than people to keep it on their watchlists. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 7

Just as a heads-up you've posted a near duplicate of your opinion regarding Comparison between roman and han empires to the discussion about Work aversion disorder at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 7. It looks like you just intended to bold an additional part of your comment regarding the Comparison... redirect, so you may want to try again (and remove or edit your comment about the Work aversion disorder redirect, as your misplace comment doesn't make sense in that context). Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Herefordshire/Shropshire

Fantastic. Any assistance you can give would be much appreciated. I'll get started on creating the project pages in the next few days and hopefully get some more people on board. I notice there are several Midland counties which currently don't have WikiProjects dedicated to them so I'm eventually planning to start a few more. If you know anyone else who might be interested please mention it to them. I'll also post a note on the Shropshire and Herefordshire talk pages. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update on this. I've started very basic pages for WikiProject Herefordshire and WikiProject Shropshire to get them up and running. I'll expand them over the next few days and create the relevant categories for related articles. Feel free to help if you can. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining and welome aboard both projects. I've got the Hereford project pretty much up and running now and hope to work on Shropshire in the next day or so. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kharsag

Hello there! I just thought I'd mention that Kharsag is now being nominated for deletion (and rescue). I would very much appreciate your thoughts and vote on the matter in it's discussion page. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using primary sources

Peter please take a look at Talk:Anthony Hungerford (roundhead), I would value your expert opinion on an issue of just how far we can go with using primary sources in an article without straying into OR. Thanking you in anticipation --PBS (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian fake parties on wikipedia

I think that these 2 pages should be deleted: Lega Padana Lombardia and Lombardy Project. As i've written in their "discussion" these parties don't exist actually and never existed in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.133.92 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of this matter and no intention to intervene. If they are WP:HOAXES, please nominate them in the articles for deletion process. You may need to log in to do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ports and harbours?

What about the totally separate tree of subcats for Category:Ports and harbours? I would think you would want to merge them together one name or the other, or maybe create Category:Harbours out of it? Do you and the others want the same on this question or different? ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_31#Category:Russian_painters_from_Saint_Petersburg

A new proposal has been made; your comments are welcome. postdlf (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Peterkingiron. 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.

Wagonway

Hello Peter, User:Globbet (Homo pedanticus) does not like {{convert}}. See the revision history of wagonway as well as Wagonway#The first iron rails Wagonway#Flangeways. Peter Horn User talk 23:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a note at User talk:Peter Horn#Wagonway. Peter Horn User talk 02:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron

See email. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman iron metallurgy

Hello there, Gun Powder Ma, or 'Tibet Libre' of CHF has been discussing the validity of the Roman metallurgical estimates of 80k tons on CHF forums. If you could input some knowledge, that would be great.

So far, I'm sensing that the problem is the source is using outdated estimates and a high estimate at best, and nobody really knows the actual iron output of the empire. And the 80k tons figure comes from a high estimate of Romano British production, and not representative of the empire at a whole. Intranetusa (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the locations cited, but I am reluctant to get involved in a debate on a forum that is far removed from my area of expertise.

I am far from sure how robust any of the estimates are. Cleere & Crossley suggest production in the Weald varying between 200 and 750 tons per year in the Weald, but they stress that their calculations are 'based on slender evidence (1995 edn, 81). The difficulty is how to multiply this up to data for the whole of Romans Britain (where there were other ironmaking regions), let alone to the whole empire, bearing in mind that some area will have made iron and others will not. In looking at consumption per head, one had to divide by population, for which we only have intellignet guesses. Some one cited British data for the early modern period. For this see my paper, P. W. King, 'The production and consumption of bar iron in early modern England and Wales' Econ. Hist. Rev. 58(1) (2005), 1-33 with corrigendum 59(1) (2006), 264. There I looked not only at iron made in the country, but that imported from elsewhere, initially mainly Spain; later Sweden; and later still also Russia. I estimated thast domestic consumption per head rose from 3.7 lb. in 1500 to 17.3 lb. in 1800, both per head per year; 4-4.5 lb. in 1540-60 may be a more robust figure than my 1500 one. I would suspect that in the Roman period, iron consumption was largely by the military, and that much of the civilian population used little - only knives and a few other tools - but I do not really know. I would therefore guess that Roman consumption per head would be lower than my 1500 (or 1540) figure, but I can offer no estimate of how much lower. I estimated that about 4000 tons was used in England and Wales in 1500, but I may well have underestimated the number of bloomeries in use, so the correct figure might be 1000 tons higher. This is perhpas double the 2250 suggested for Roman Britain, apparently assuming that the Wealden production was a thrid of that for the province as a whole. That does not seem an incredible ratio. 17th century Swedish iron production was much greater than English, but I have litlte idea of the size of that of Germany, FRacne, Belgium, Italy, etc. Nevertheless, Swedish iron production grew in the 17th century due to Dutch envestment.

You are welcome to copy this on to the CHF forum, but I do not intend to participate myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and input. I will indeed copy and paste this on to the CHF discussion. Intranetusa (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to join the discussion on this article again, as GPM is trying to keep the figure in the article despite the consensus formed of me, you and intranetusa on the talk page.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MEPs

Thanks for your comments on the MEPs CFD that I started. Just to let you know, I've withdrawn that relatively complicated nomination and have started three other nominations that are a little more modest and are more in line with where the discussion was headed. If these proposals are accepted, we can follow them up with future ones to resolve the other issues. Because you commented in the original discussion, I thought you might like to participate there. The three discussions are here, here, and here. (I'm sure you would have run across these in any case, but I did want you to know since I withdrew the nomination that you offered comments in.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conway

No worries, there's a method to my madness. His son, Edward Conway, 2nd Viscount Conway, had a writ in acceleration for the barony in 1628; given that those seated by virtue of such writs have been held to pass the accelerated peerages to their heirs (rather than their parents) should they die, I thought it appropriate to indicate the passage by writ in the succession boxes. Choess (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just add a line under the title, thus: <small>([[writ in acceleration]])</small>), as with those actually summoned by the writ? Choess (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been working through our list of writs, so I'll go back and add the additional label. (Actually, in the case you've mentioned, it would probably be best to put it under the name of the successor--i.e., the person summoned by writ--to avoid confusion.) Choess (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at William FitzAlan, 18th Earl of Arundel and see if you like that style; I just want to differentiate between those gaining and passing on peerages a little more clearly than by examining dates. Choess (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman total iron output

You are invited to take part in a discussion on a scholarly estimate of total Roman iron production here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wagonway

I added the bit about Catch me who can to indicate that the track problem still had not been solved by 1808. Someone has borrowed my copy of Anthony Burton's biography, but I am think it is pretty well established that track failure was significant in the abandonment of the steam circus, the engine having fallen over. You may be right that it is not historically important enough in the context, but we do not know what might have happened had the project been more successful. Globbet (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian cities category

I've reopened the question of how to name the Romanian cities category here. Notifying you and other participants in the previous discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil parishes in England

Hi Peter. Civil parishes in England, an article you have contributed to, has been reassessed to C class from Start class. Apparently many people watch and/or visit this page as an alternative to the broader Civil parishes article. I've quickly scanned it for needing a possible copy edit, but it already looks reasonably good to me. However, I did feel it just needs a little attention such as adding more inline refs. It's not tagged or anything, but if you can help ut with a source or two, it would be much appreciated. Perhaps from your other work on geography articles, you will know where to look, and we will be able to promote it to 'B'.Kudpung (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sovereign states sorting criteria

Sorry to bother here, but as you are a contributor to certain discussions at the List of sovereign states I would like to show you the recently compiled list of all proposals for sorting criteria so that you can express your opinion here. Thanks! Alinor (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America

Your AFD comment here mentioned reliable source coverage. I have worked on the article, expanded it, and added coverage from secondary sources. (I am still in the process of research on it, have over 50 more sources to go through) Perhaps you could revisit? Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had any chance yet to take another look at this article? -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LORDSHIP OF BOWLAND: PLEASE ACQUAINT YOURSELF WITH THE AVAILABLE RESEARCH.

LORDSHIP OF BOWLAND Peter, you are misreading the Lordship of Bowland - it was never a mechanism of the Duchy of Lancaster, as you call it. I urge you to visit to look at the monograph I co-authored where you will see the history examined in detail. It is referenced as the Cambridge History of the Lordship of Bowland on the Wiki page. If you have any queries, I suggest you contact me at swjolly@btinternet.com before further editing.

As it happens, I approve of your editing of the page to date but might I suggest you bring the contents box into conformity with the subheads?

Stephen Jolly Fellow, Clare College University of Cambridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.95.218 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replied on article talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim mostly an ethnicity?

No it's not!!! That's Arab that's the ethnicity! Islam is a religion that has members of many different ethnicities...Arab, Black, Asian... Purple backpack89 21:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholics opposed to the Third Reich

Hi. You need to be more careful when you respond out of sequence. You dismembered my response to a comment directly preceding it when you inserted your response which should have gone at the bottom as a new comment. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evesham GAC

Hi Peter! Evesham is now nearing Good Article quality and will shortly be nominated for review. If you have anything to contribute than can improve its scope or quality, please do not hesitate to chip in.. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WORCS

Hi Peter. In order to more accurately interpret Wikipedia policy, it has been suggested that we rename the Malvern, Worcestershire page. Please see the proposal at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Suggested page move where you are welcome to voice your opinion. --Kudpung (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards OCAT

Actually, I wasn't aware that most awards categories were being considered OCAT but I think you're right and things have probably gotten way out of hand.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the I-Fly article

Hi Peter, I have just expanded the I-Fly article with some more sources and an image that I found. Do you think that in its current shape it has a chance to pass WP:CORP? I really dare say that there are many airline articles around here that look much worse. I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessor and successor cells

Greetings, Mr King. I wonder whether you remember this proposal... Wearing my Wiktator mantle I'd say enough time has passed, and it would be prudent to wait no more before proceeding with its implementation (as amended in the subsequent dialogue). Regarding the last comment in that section, I haven't thought of any specific idea for acting office-holders, but this has always been a tricky issue and one of secondary importance, so I am content to leave it for the future. In any case, it would be great if you could make the change yourself; I understand you know a thing or two about templates, and you are still registered as a member of SBS. With regards, Waltham, The Duke of 03:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I seem to have thought you were an administrator yourself. Never mind; I'll take care of this now. Waltham, The Duke of 16:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Note

Just a quick note to let you know that i have edited an archive you are represented on ~ the archive of the Earl of Clare talk page ~ as several of the conversations had been edited, removing information, before being archived. I'm not expecting you to do anything; this is simply a courtesy note to be sure i'm not thought to be covering up mine actions. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modular kiln

Hey, Since a while, I had the idea of a modular kiln/forge design (see http://www.appropedia.org/Modular_kiln ). I was wondering whether you could give me some info on how to design it. Hopefully, we can attain something useful in the end. 91.182.245.136 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire

Hi Peter. 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) 05:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evesham

Is now nominated as a WP:GAC. Get ready for battle :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religious text primary

A TFD has been opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_30#Template:BibleAsFact. Jheald (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ton

I have placed a new draft on the talk page. SpinningSpark 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire by-election dates

I have restored the dates on Worcestershire (UK Parliament constituency), which you reverted to a previous incorrect version.

See Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs – Constituencies beginning with "W" (part 5) or Stooks Smith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of clergymen

Hi, I started a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Clergymen, your input is welcome. J04n(talk page) 15:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund C. Gruss

Seeing that you seem to know something of Edmund C. Gruss, I encourage you to add to and improve the current article. I agree with you that something is fishy with the nominator's determination to delete the article. I have noticed that members of fringe groups at Wikipedia have been rather successful in getting articles removed that they don't like. One example I example is freemasons who successfully removed an article on the religious author John Salza claiming he was non-notable. The truth of the matter was that he had been a freemason and left and wrote a negative book about the organization. Dwain (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evesham

Hi Peterkingiron/Archive 2. 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) 21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kipling categories.

Dear Peter King

I entered a note of disclaimer about the deletion of my Kipling categories + a defence thereof, and a note of despair about wikipedia's treatment of arts subjects. I'm not sure how visible it is, so I copy it to you in the hopes that the policy may change. I'm in no way enough of a wikipedian to know how tro do this otherwise.

What I said (with typos corrected) was:

My purpose in creating these categories was important to me. I think I have given up any attempt to have wikipedia acknowledge that one of the usual ways of writing works of reference in 'arts' subjects (in this case literature) is to supply links and cases from which the reader(/learner) can construct her own understanding of the art in question. There is no easy way - there is no way at all - of finding a final, authoritative and 'correct' judgement of the value of a work of art. When we come to themes and so on, it is just as hard to decide whether Kipling was a racist or not. Discussion of this will continue as long as people bother to read the works. My categories were designed to help wikipedian seekers after truth to make up their own minds.

I think this clashes with the current thinking of the wikipedia community. This saddens me, as I think it is cutting off large swathes of human experience from the on-line encyclopaedia. If you look at such printed sources as The Oxford Companion to English Literature, you will find that there is at least some truth in my assertions. MacAuslan (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

MacAuslan (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response just received. I will cogitate, and probably 'listify' (when I master the technology) as you suggest - when over current combination of busy-ness, tax return and cold/chill/flu. MacAuslan (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

Since you commented on 'Modern American Weapons' at CfD, the proposal has been modified somewhat. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to take another look at the modified proposal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ground-attack aircraft

Could you respond at Talk:Ground-attack_aircraft#Requested move. I felt the move is non-controversial, and found it strange that you've opposed it. Since then, I've added additional sources to the article, to support the proposition. Earlier discussion on the page also unanimously supported the rename, as it seems to me. I really feel like working on the article, but I'm not going to put my effort into it if it starts with the "wrong" name. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 31.
Message added 02:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quine

Re this, do you have anything that indicates that Quine's full name is more commonly used than "W. V. Quine"? From what I can find, the initialed name is used far more often and therefore suggesting to move the article would appear to me to not be in conformity with WP:COMMONNAME. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no further comment: I have not detailed information. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the information I have provided, does it not seem sensible to rename as nominated to match the main article? We can't form a consensus to move the article at CFD and no one is proposing that the article be moved on the article talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Farrokh

Hi, There is a BLP issue and an RFC in here about Kaveh Farrokh. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 07:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Project assessment

Peter, I have put a plea for assistance on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mills page is there anyway you could have a go at giving me some feedback, by assessing a few from {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}}. Clem --ClemRutter (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire.
Message added 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madeley Wood Company

Peter please could you have a look at User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#About Bedlam Furnace and User talk:Blast furnace chip worker#Madeley Wood Company, it is more your area of expertise than mine, perhaps answering his/her question would help suggest a possible useful expansion to the article. But even if it does not do that it might make Wikipedia a friend. -- PBS (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm here already. And I'm still need a halp.

Can You tell me why they called Madeley Wood Company by name Bedlam Furnace? In this moment I am writing article about Ironbridge Gorge and its places of interest. And I would to know why Madeley Wood Company was also called Bedlam Furnace? Well, if You can and want answer my question (or give some links) please do it. If You do not want do that, well, I am sorry for trouble. talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

And one thing yet. I need this information to not to do contribution to the English articles but to write a new article on my native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast furnace chip worker (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locomotives of Taiwan

The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 1#Category:Locomotives of Taiwan was closed with a "no consensus". The closer, Mike Selinker, indicated here that a new discussion was necessary. I note that Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China has been marked for merger to Category:Locomotives of Taiwan for some time. I completed the listing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 17#Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China. You are being notified, as you commented in the original discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Abraham Darby III's mother

I think there is a mistake either here or here. My explanation is here.

About pronunciation of the word "Bonawe"

Would you like to say me how to pronounciate the name of the hamlet of Bonawe? Which variant is the correct? [boneɪw] or [bonɔː]? And one another quation yet. How to pronunciate the Scottish Gaelic name of this settlement which is written by Englis as Bun Abha, [bʌn ʌbʌ] or [bʌn æbə] or any how else? I need this information beacose I want to write an article about Bonawe and its Furnase on my native language.

I regret to say that I am English and cannot help you definitively on a GaeLic name. Please sing your posts with ~~~~ so that I can know who to reply to. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tra-la-la!!

What a lovely thought: "Please sing your posts..." :o)

-- EdJogg (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Nomination of Rodney Morison for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rodney Morison is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Morison (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Meet up

See here. Late notice I know, please make a note on that page not here. Please pass this on. This will happen. Victuallers (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Blast furnace "blow up" or "blow out" in 1703?

Hello! I think there is a mistake there. It is written there “ but not later than April 1703, the furnace blew up. It remained derelict until the arrival of Abraham Darby I in 1709. “ Perhaps it were more corectly to sey " but not later than April 1703, the furnace blew out "? Coues, everybody know if blast furnace "blew up" it is "on" but if blast furnace blew out it is out while Coalbroocdale furnace was out in the period between years 1703 and 1709. I am not native English spiker so I need an explanation from that one who are. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am well familiar with the term blew out, but the here was an explosion: it blew up. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thenk you for your answer. I did suspect that event but hoped for the better. Is there any links about that to read? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mare nostrum

This article, the merger of which you were involved in, has been re-constituted here. There is currently a new merger discussion here; your comments are invited. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Malvern, Worcestershire/archive1

Hi Peter. 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 on 19 July where I will be staying (Barnards Green, Malvern )for 2 months. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statute of Rhuddlan

You mentioned on the talk page for the Statute of Rhuddlan that you wanted access to an online copy of the Statute. Obviously the authoritative text for the Statute is that printed in Vol. I of The Statutes of the Realm, which isn't available online. However, the (Latin) text of the Statute can also be found in pp. 3–12 of the Appendix to The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead and Runnington), which is available via Google Books. If that's no use to you, you might find this little book handy, as it has an English translation of the Statute which has presumably been taken from The Statutes of the Realm, as well as what appears to be other useful material relating to Wales' legislative history. Cheers, Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

John Bradshaw (judge)

Unfortunately the article John Bradshaw (judge) was originally copied from a site with a copyleft licence that is incompatible with Wikipedia's licence. This means that all of the current article is a derivative work and bound by the incompatible licence. This means that either someone will have to get an OTRS ticket or we will have to zap the page and the history of the article and start again (for more details talk:John Bradshaw (judge)). I noticed that you made a significant and what must have been a time consuming edit to the article back in 2009. You might like to save it somewhere else so that if I zap the history of the article you can re-add it. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 2.
Message added 05:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide

Please note that I have done a procedural close to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide, and created a new discussion about the related category tree at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Category:Suicides by occupation. Feel free to express your opinion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Weaving

Talk:Weaving I have placed a proposal there you may wish to comment on --ClemRutter (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy

I asked for your intervention or advice a short time ago and received no reply. Would you mind telling me why you did not even show me the courtesy of a reply. I would really like to know? Is that not one of your duties? Mugginsx (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

Science and Invention Article

Hello, thanks for your comments on the above, I hope I haven't scared you off with my slightly passionate post on the article talk page. I created virtually the whole thing when I was registered as a previous user (lost my password) and have since added bit and pieces more as I find them. I do welcome any new positive input on this page and yoru suggestions are welcome, I'd like to hear more. I'm going to create my own 'museum' blog when I have a moment and trasfer some of my work to that from this page, it won't be exactly the same and will be in a different layout. Ideally I'd love to link to my website from the article, do you think this would be ok? Anyway, once again thanks for your constructive input over there, I'll try and not be so precious about changes (just nervous some of the work could be lost). Old Bess (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow- that was an impresssive edit! Beautifully executed as you kept the other principal editor on board. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily closed Talk:The Mitzvah of sanctifying the Kohen

Now the RM has temporarily closed (someone would have to nominate a specific English title) I'd just like to thank you for the comment "Putting up a WP:RM request is actually a good way of getting a wide discussion, with input from uninvolved editors." Technically I shouldn't have, but it did attract uninvolved editors. Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guns

It was a combination of no subst and adding a comment which is not used on deletion nominations. Now maybe comments should be accepted on these which is an interesting question. Also, you may want to consider auto archiving of your talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hanley

Back in December 2009, you contributed to a deletion discussion for this article. The result was 'no consensus', but two years later, I still believe he is non-notable by our standards, and have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Hanley (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Peking

My proposed move to Peking is not vandalism. I copied the move template from Leghorn, and I forgot to change it. OttomanJackson (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Square Monorail

Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Square Monorail.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Done[reply]

Burning of Washington: your comments

Thank you for the time you have taken to review the source in question. I will not change anything in the article or its talk page, but you noted that:

Page 103 says that in retailiation for American atrocities on the Canadian border, he ordered squadron commanders to 'destroy and lay waste' towns. This is clearly a quotation from Cockburn's orders. It is not clear to me what "atrocities" are alluded to.

There is reasonably good evidence that this refers to the aftermath of the Raid on Port Dover. Governor General Sir George Prevost wrote to Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane (Cockburn's superior) demanding retributions, and Cochrane issued public orders to this effect, although he privately modified these to allow his captains to seize property rather than destroy it. I cannot find any evidence that Prevost specifically demanded retribution after the burning of public buildings in York a year earlier.HLGallon (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Election figures

Hey Peter. I noticed that in the Preston constituency article I follow. I'll do the maths and see if it's vandalism or not. Thanks for flagging it up doktorb _words^deeds 11:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Occupation of Constantinople (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mustafa Kemal

United Kingdom coalition government (1916–1922) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ministry of Shipping

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both

DonePeterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]