Jump to content

User talk:Senra/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Congratulations

I see little Thetford made FA - very nice.--SPhilbrickT 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your support is really appreciated --Senra (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
{{Talkback}} Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to all who supported Little Thetford at FAC

A really big thank you to all those who have helped take Little Thetford from here to here. I have learned a great deal. Since starting this project on 30 May 2010 I have created ten additional articles and contributed to 39 others (see list here)

--Senra (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

From a one line stub to FA in a little under two months is a fine effort, especially for someone's first Featured Article. I hope you're proud of yourself Senra, this is very impressive. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations. FAC looks daunting, but it's one of the few processes on Wikipedia that works more often than not. (Admittedly, the "nots" can be spectacular.) – iridescent 22:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Congrats, a great achivement. NtheP (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As Nev1 says, a very impressive effort. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
My congratulations too - thanks also for your efforts at peer review! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


The Content Creativity Barnstar
To Senra, for growing a Little Thetford from an acorn to a tree... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Here you go, you can start decorating your userpage with one of these...sorta like collecting stickers (decals) really...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work, especially for an FAC virgin. I was impressed by the speed of your responses, and I look forward to reviewing your next FA. There's a lot to be said for starting from a stub, you don't have to undo other editor's unreferenced/pov/made-up work (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Rework of the Little Thetford geology section by local geologists

I have just been handed the following re-write of the Little Thetford geology section (which I have wikified before placing here). As Little Thetford is now a featured article, is it OK to replace the existing section with this new material?

Geology and topography

The village, which lies at about 16 feet (5 m) sea-level, sits largely on the Kimmeridge Clay, a Jurassic shallow-water shelf-sea deposit, with an overall south-south-east to south-east dip. Underlying the Kimmeridge Clay, are similarly dipping older Jurassic clays, which also contain thin beds of limestone and sandstone. Overlying the Kimmeridge Clay and lying some distance to the east of the village are similarly dipping, younger Cretaceous rocks, comprising the Greensand and Chalk.(BGS (1989) sheet 173)(BGS (1989) sheet 188) At the west of the village, an outlier of Greensand forms the foundation of a hill rising to some 30 feet (9 m) above sea-level. This hill is capped by much younger (Pleistocene) “boulder clay”, the result of large ice sheets having moved over the wider general area.

The Greensand also crops out to the south of the village. There it forms the eastern end of a similar outlier, on top of which is sited the village of Stretham. To the north-west of Little Thetford, a further outlier of Greensand, capped by “boulder clay”, occurs in the vicinity of Bedwell Hey Farm. Northwards, an even larger outlier of Greensand, partly capped by glacial deposits, forms a hill rising to 85 feet (26 m) above sea-level. This, the highest point locally, has allowed the development of the regionally important Saxon settlement of Ely, now famous for its mighty medieval cathedral.

Even more geologically recent gravel, alluvium and fen deposits are found in the valley of the River Great Ouse at the eastern end of the village; they merge into the extensive flat tracts of fenland which stretch north-east towards The Wash.

  • Cambridge (Map). 1:50000. British Geological Survey. 1989. § 188. {{cite map}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • Cambridge (Map). 1:50000. British Geological Survey. 1989. § 173. {{cite map}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

--Senra (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good -an improvement, so yeah. Just make all the formatting looks okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done Geology and topography

Your labour of love.

The Original Barnstar
To Senra for taking Little Thetford from Stub to Featured Article status (and not being satisfied with G.A.) Ykraps (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


I see someone has already rewarded you but I don't think one Barnstar is enough given your achievements. If ever I'm around your way I will definitely drop into your village. You have put Little Thetford on the map! Well done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Augustus Voelcker

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Aldreth

I removed a para that should have been on the talk page and is redundant anyway. Your edits are fine. You are much more conscientious than me, I tend to adopt a slash-and-burn approach, and wait for people to tell me I got it wrong (if I did) (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Candidus

{{helpme}} I would like to create the article Hugh Candidus [Hugh Albus] (c.1095–c.1160). He was a Benedictine monk and chronicler, who wrote a history of Peterborough Abbey from its first foundation to the mid-twelfth century. ODNB (subscription required); see also s:Hugh (fl.1107%?-1155%?) (DNB00). However, Hugh Candidus redirects to Hugh of Remiremont; the DAB article Hugh looks quite full. What is the best way to handle this?

Notability. Hugh Candidus (the chronicler) is mentioned in the following wikipedia articles

additionally, he should me mentioned at least in

ps is there a way to find out if Hugh Candidus (the chronicler) was ever deleted? --Senra (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to go ahead and turn the redirect into an article (or I can delete if for you if you want to start from scratch) and simply use a hatnote (like {{distinguish}}) to point readers elsewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - HJ beat me, as usual; is far too efficient! Here is an alternate answer, anyway...)

As always, first, make a user space draft to get it into shape before going live.
Then, you could just overwrite Hugh Candidus (the redirect) with the new article, and use a hatnote to tell people about the other person, something like;
{{For|the Benedictine at Remiremont Abbey|Hugh of Remiremont}}
For the Benedictine at Remiremont Abbey, see Hugh of Remiremont.

...or some other hatnote.

Re. was it ever deleted...I will have a look, and let you know if I can find anything, ASAP.
For more help, you can either;
  • Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
  • Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
  • Talk to us live, with this or this.
The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello.  Chzz  ►  22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both. Do not delete the redirect. I will copy the article there when I have it ready. That way, we will maintain history. I will create the article in user space - in fact it is started --Senra (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have created a user space draft of Senra/Hugh Candidus. I would welcome any Anglo-Saxon or Norman experts opinion of how I can improve this --Senra (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied contents of User:Senra/Hugh Candidus (leaving a WP:REDIR behind) to Hugh Candidus (which has a {{Distinguish}} note to Hugh of Remiremont) then Wikilinked Hugh Candidus in all the following:Gyrwe, Gesta Herwardi, Peterborough, Sexwulf, Ælfgifu of Northampton, Medeshamstede and added prose in Ernulf that Hugh was one of Ernulf's teachers --Senra (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I created some of the redlinks that are now blue, when I was in the course of expanding the Medeshamstede article a couple of years ago. Hugh's page looks good at first glance, I'll try and have a proper look soon. Excellent to see blue instead of red! Nortonius (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Polly Morgan

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yay! My first BLP and it is a DYK too --Senra (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

new template - Settlements in East Cambridgeshire

{{Helpme}} There may be a template missing. On looking at Himbleton recently, it was noticed there was a {{Navbox}} at the bottom, {{Wychavon}}. Little Thetford has no such box. So I made one in here. How do I go about getting it approved then installing it? --Senra (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Template:East Cambridgeshire. Just add it on each of the pages now. —fetch·comms 17:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for approving the new template so rapidly. I have taken the liberty of adding the template to all the cities, towns and villages (in East Cambridgeshire of course) that it itself references (so if I gone and got it all wrong, that is a lot of changes someone else has to do!) Anyway, I assume that I got it right. In the process, I fixed a red-link (Pymoor --> Pymore, Cambridgeshire which itself was moved to Pymoor, Cambridgeshire) and a dab-link (Coveney --> Coveney)
--Senra (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lancelot Ridley

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

St George's church, Little Thetford

Sorry about the delay in replying. I was out all day yesterday and have been tied up with other tasks today until now. I was going to say; of course move it into mainspace – but I see that you have now done so. It's a good church article, well referenced and contains all the necessary information. And you haven't made the common mistake when writing about your local church of inserting information you "know" rather than material that is properly referenced.

You're very lucky to have a recent Victoria County History covering your area; there's lots of material in that for future expansion if you so wish (my home county of Cheshire seems to have gone into limbo in this matter). There's no problem about "stealing"; no one "owns" anything in Wikipedia, and whatever you have copied from my format, I've copied from elsewhere, or it has arisen as a result of working with other editors. The only significant comment I would make is that I think "Church" in the title should be capitalised. Good luck with your future articles, on churches or other subjects. There's no way I shall be able to write "a wikipedia article for every church in England"; I need help! Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for your support. I moved it to main-space as J3Mrs (talk · contribs) replied before you indicating you would not mind. I am not sure about Church or church; I even checked the OED; I guess if MF passes by he will know; in the meantime, I will drop a redirect on St George's Church, Little Thetford just to be safe --Senra (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is now St George's Church, Little Thetford with a redirect from St George's church, Little Thetford although I am still uncertain. If MF strolls by and tells us we are wrong I will cry --Senra (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Why wait for MF to "stroll by"; why not ask him direct? He's a great helper in matters such as this, and likes to help people (although he does not suffer fools ...; and you are clearly no fool!).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Erm, thank you for the underseved compliment. He was stressing recently as he appeared to be continually bothered by trivia that was preventing him doing things he liked. I thought I would leave him to de-stress a while. In any case, I changed it as all your DYK's are of the same form --Senra (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Knobs in wikipedia

Looking around, there are some real knobs in wikipedia. Purile I know, but still funny to me --Senra (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that I know little about Zinneke Parade

When I created that article, I just wanted to tell others there is such an activity. I would be grateful if you would like to expand the stub.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. However, it is normal for the person who created the article to help in maintaining it. In this case, I would expect you to help by looking for references and trying to help with the suggestions that have already been made here --Senra (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hugh Candidus

Hello! Your submission of Hugh Candidus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NortyNort (Holla) 09:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about: ALT1: ... that Hugh Candidus (c.1095–c.1160), a Benedictine monk (pictured), wrote a history of Peterborough monastery from its formation as Medeshamstede in the mid 7th century to the 12th century? --Senra (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(Hopefully final change?) ALT2: ... that Hugh Candidus (c.1095–c.1160), a Benedictine monk (pictured), wrote a history of Peterborough Abbey from foundation as Medeshamstede in the mid 7th century up to the 12th century? done? --Senra (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Aldreth

Hello, I'm here for a change! I noticed that you've added reference to the Bourne Archive at Aldreth, in this edit - have you seen what I wrote about the Bourne Archive at Talk:Gesta Herewardi? I really don't think the Bourne Archive is a WP:RS, and would emphasise what I said earlier about it being a potential minefield, on my talk page. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood but consider that I am referencing only the Miller texts within the Bourne Archive. Obviously, if you still think this is wrong I will retract --Senra (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, understood also - and, I've just seen your message on my talk page about it, don't worry, I'm happy that we're having this discussion! So, you don't need to think in terms of defending yourself, I'm not attacking you! :-) But what I mean by "minefield" is that, even in e.g. the Miller text, RJP has added his/her own opinions in footnotes, which the reader, directed there from WP, is liable to take as read; whereas the Bourne Archive is a self-published resource, and, given RJP's incorporation of footnotes, the Miller text there is the Bourne Archive's own version of Miller/Sweeting, and is therefore not WP:RS. What I'm really afraid of is that this is precisely how opinions are transformed into facts with the re-telling - once that has happened, you can be faced with the task of battling misinformation, which can be exhausting: think of how much time you and I have spent discussing Hugh Candidus and the "Gesta Herewardi", much of it because, in essence, the self-published RJP has adopted an assumption about the connection! I firmly believe that the only "online texts" we should be referencing are ones where the text is given as found, and not as annotated by someone who has set up their own website, to publish their own views; and I'm sure that's in line with WP:RS. (later:) It would be different if RJP's annotated text were published on a university website, for example — simply because then it wouldn't be self-published, and peer review would ensure that the analysis would be more critical, and less in the style of "ok let's do this". Those are my thoughts, anyway, and there is progress! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I think it would be wrong to cut the Aldreth article much more. IMHO, we should mention something about the battles. I too would prefer a more direct source. I will try and obtain a copy of Miller/Sweeting from the library. In the meantime, would you be content to let what is left stand? --Senra (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yup, cool indeed - I just had a look at Aldreth, I think you've done a good job of trimming that down, and yes, there should be mention of the battles, very much IMHO as you have left it. I think I spotted that the article needs a bit more cleanup, e.g. the EL to www.reference.com is no good, but my only real concern at the moment is the link in the Bibliography to the Bourne Archive - which you're addressing! Great! :-) Nortonius (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking again at Aldreth, the bit about the name itself still needs some tidying, which I'd be happy to do, having done this sort of thing — in form, it would end up somewhere between my efforts at The Swale, which is just one sentence, and Medeshamstede, which is much longer. I have the most important sources already mentioned to hand, plus one that isn't, and I can clarify why "1170" occurs in the article. I mention it because you've been very busy with Aldreth, and you've made some changes in the relevant section, so I didn't want to just whack it in there as a surprise/shock for you. I'll probably work something up in my own user space, and then whack it in there...! Nortonius (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Go right ahead. I hacked out the unreferenced stuff a while ago when I came across this. I inserted the entire Mills reference and provided suitable references for everything else that was left. Feel free to change it --Senra (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done - fascinating but mind-bending it was, too! Nortonius (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Did I misunderstand Head (1995) p. 86 note 7 as quoting Stenton (1943) Anglo-Saxon England in Aldreth:note 5 or did you misunderstand Head (1995) p. 86 as quoting Freeman, E.A., History of the Norman Conquest of England (5 vols. & Index), OUP, 1867-9 in Aldreth:note 1? --Senra (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
... or did Head (1995) get it wrong anyway? --Senra (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
too much speculation on my part. Perhaps head (1995) was quoting Freeman (1867–9) from Stenton (1943) so we were both wrong? I do not have Freeman nor Stenton to check --Senra (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) I've got Head open in front of me (sounds grim!), the book's a real pain, because of inadequate refs - anyway, p. 86 says: "Freeman recalls: [followed by the lengthy, unreferenced quotation]". There's a footnote at the end of the quotation, but all it says is "A long mounded causeway is still to be seen running from Aldreth village across the fields towards Belsar's Hill." No mention of Stenton there, anyway, and I've got Stenton, and searched it... I'll probably be offline for some time now, I have a visitor on their way. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha my bad. Was somehow looking at footnote for chapter 7 not 5. You are absolutely right. He he. Anyway, I had fun speculating and writing the above --Senra (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The quest for knowledge leads in strange directions: Head (1995) pp. 7–8 introduces Edward Augustus Freeman's five-volume tome The Norman Conquest (1867–1879) then he says "... [Freeman] stands indicted for so interpreting the past through the distorting mirror of his own contemporary political sentiments ..." then Head proceeds to quote Freeman extensively (around 30 pages). Anyway, on that basis, I suggest you can remove the conjecture from Aldreth:reference 1 --Senra (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed, to "strange directions" - which is why I'd be minded to leave the conjecture in that ref, as it serves as a marker for how unreliable Head, Hereward is as a source IMHO, despite being legitimately published. It's basically an essay that got into print, and is not up to academic standards (e.g. the lack of decent footnotes/references). I'll tweak the ref slightly though, to remove the actual element of "conjecture", leaving only citation of Freeman. If you follow me. I've also had a go at Gesta Herewardi, re-writing and removing mention of Hugh Candidus, for which see Talk:Gesta Herewardi. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
As a (relevant?) aside, I see you removed RJPe's attempt to respond to criticism which I thought addressed the issue by removing RJPe's footnotes that were questioned. I accept that the role of Hugh Candidus in the Herewardi story is not clearly shown. However, for reference purposes, and WP:AGF, I would value your opinion on the use of the urls in Latin and in English when citing Miller and Sweeting, given that the Google Books version of De Gestis Herwardi Saxonis is incomplete --Senra (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that there should be NO links from WP to boar.org.uk, aka "The Bourne Archive", citing it as a "reliable source" for the materials it presents, and the URLs you mention are subpages of "The Bourne Archive". The reason for this is that all materials at "The Bourne Archive" which have been cited up to the time of this writing, and I have seen, are explicitly "self-published". As well as the discussion on my talk page, to which you refer, see the (brief, and likely to remain so for now) discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, my recent comments at Gesta Herewardi's talk page, and editor Dougweller's responses in both places. I shall probably remove all such links as I see them - again, unless you beat me to it - though I know that at present there are still some at Aldreth. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Hi, I just thought I'd let you know I've responded to your comment at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN) - you can go there just by clicking the title of this topic. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Senra, for drawing my attention to the discussion on the Reliable souces noticeboard. (RJPe (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

DYK for Hugh Candidus

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St George's Church, Little Thetford

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cary's coach route

I noticed at the FAC for Little Thetford (great work by the way!), right at the end, you considered adding "John Cary, the 18 century cartographer, documents a coach route from London to King's Lynn passing by the village in his Cary's New Itinerary.[cite book][external ref to map]" but didn't get anyone to give you "permission" to do so. Actually you don't need permission and you should just add it anyway :-) The fact it was on the traditional London-King's Lynn coach route is of substantial historical importance, especially bearing in mind that King's Lynn used to be a more important place than it is now. So long as you have a solid source for it, and it seems you do, this is a perfectly fine thing to add - articles don't need to be frozen once they've passed FAC! It's certainly far more interesting than knowing that it lies on two user-added walking routes on a website that probably isn't a reliable source (in fact if it's a website that accepts user submissions, I'd argue that it isn't RS and the information should be removed). There might be better sources for the walking routes: walking books might be good place to start, e.g. "The rough guide to walks in London and southeast England" by Judith Bamber and Helena Smith, page 246 on the Upware to Ely route, although that walk goes past on the opposite bank of the river.

 Done thank you for the advice --Senra (Talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the way you laid out your references at Little Thetford, I wonder if you'd be interested in using {{Harvnb}}? Have a look at how it works at Lunar Society of Birmingham... the benefit is that if you click on the "short form" citation, you get taken to the full details in the bibliography. TheGrappler (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being so responsive, looks good!
Regarding {{Harvnb}}. I took a quick look to see what the issues might me. On first glance, CHER, Fowler, ODNB, OED and A Vision of Britain might have problems with the template. CHER in particular as the notes section details the author (from CHER) whilst the Bibl. section details the home address of the database. Let me consider this further and sandbox some stuff --Senra (Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I recommend {{Harvnb}} for books (I've not used it for anything else). It means that if you click on the blue-linked ref, it takes you to the relevant book. Easy to use and IMO well worthwhile. Have a look at Eaton Hall, Cheshire as an example of how it works. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
{{Harvnb}}: I had a go - I could not make it work (I used the first occurrence of the Fowler ref. I even changed the date to 1947 from 1946-1947 and it still did not work). I fully understand the mechanism. It is indeed a nice idea. As far as I recall though, in the MOS, any referencing scheme is fine, as long as it is consistent. In this case, and as currently written, the article would need quite a few changes to enable it to use Harvnb consistently (i.e. removing sources from Bibl. that cannot be Harvnb'd(?); changing all other sources to use Harvnb plus stuff I have not considered). I am going to leave this one --Senra (Talk) 19:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to work in some articles and fall down in others, goodness knows why - I made the template but I didn't write the clever code that runs it! At some point I will try to work it out... TheGrappler (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Tip. Put the year in the "Year" field, not in the "Date" field. I fell into this trap. You also have to use the "Citation" template rather than "Cite book". I've done it for the Oppitz reference in Little Thetford and it seems to work. I now use it all the time and providing you follow the "rules" it seems good. Good luck.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I've done it for Pevsner too!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. Useful to know for future. Indeed I will use it in future too. As I said above, as far as I know, the MOS allows any style of referencing so long as it is consitent. If anyone drives-by with a big enough tool that can change all the references to Harvnb style then fair enough, but I am not going to do it --Senra (Talk) 21:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't feel pressured into using it, it can be helpful, but as you said, by no means necessary! Thanks a lot, Peter, also. TheGrappler (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This might help: User:Chzz/help/harvard  Chzz  ►  20:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Candidus

There were a couple of things about Hugh Candidus that I've scrawled on the talk page there; I wonder if you think it could be put up for WP:GAN at some point? I don't think it is quite ready yet but it can't be far off. TheGrappler (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

GAN? I thought it was too small (645 words) for GAN but what do I know --Senra (Talk) 17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
GAN was originally developed for articles that were too small to be "worth" taking to FAC! (In fact, the creator of the idea of good articles quit the project, after other people reached consensus that longer articles were acceptable too...) Short articles are fine and reviewers probably prefer them. All that matters is whether the coverage is broad enough - if something is short because it misses out large amounts of the topic, that's bad. But if it's just a short article that says everything it needs to say, that's fine! If you look at other encyclopedias, you'll see that very many of their articles are of a similar length. Shortness doesn't indicate lack of quality :-) TheGrappler (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I will get it copy-edited then pass it through review then GAN. Thank you for the advice. Most welcome --Senra (Talk) 19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hugh Candidus is has been posted to peer-review --Senra (Talk) 19:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Civil parishes in England

Hi Senra. Congratulations on your FA for Little Thetford :) On the Civil parishes issue, no consensus is required, but if you feel strongly enough about it, you are welcome to start an RfC, and I'll help you draft the motion. if you are unsure about these points, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page or the talk page at WP:WORCS.--Kudpung (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Going to be honest here. My concensus enquiry at Talk:Civil parishes in England was not because I care one way or the other about civil parishes, although I do question why no concensus was required to replace B-class wikilinks with start-class wikilinks. No, it was more the AWB edit summary being wrong. In here the ES records (disambiguate civil parish, replaced: civil parish → civil parish using AWB (6786)) which is
  1. wrong. These were not disambiguate changes and
  2. wrong. Other changes made in the same edit were not recorded in the ES
--Senra (Talk) 11:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Senra, I've already explained: Wikilinks do not operate on a system of page hierarchy. Authors are fully entitled to Wikilink as they think fit - within reasonable parameters. ASFAIK there is no policy governing this and if there is and I have missed it, (anything is possible, in spite of generally knowing my way round the site) please point me to it.--Kudpung (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Churches

I saw these, and immediately thought of you. ☺ Do you think that you'd be able to help with article rescue? Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  • He he. Thank you for the thought, but I have stolencopied everything I know about churches from Peter_I._Vardy (talk · contribs). Still, as it came my way first, I have stepped in, but I will alert Peter too --Senra (Talk) 16:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Bear in mind that this is very much about article rescue. Here's the source that I found, mentioned earlier:
      • Francis Redfern (1865). "History of Christianity in Uttoxeter". History of the town of Uttoxeter. London: J. Russell Smith. pp. 151–155.
    • Uncle G (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you Uncle G. What a lovely little book. It has some quaint references. For example this sentence "However, when preparations were being made for the erection of the nave of the present church, remains were discovered of some kind which fixed the existence of a church at Uttoxeter more than a thousand years before that date." is supported by "Information from the widow (an intelligent person) of the Sexton." --Senra (Talk) 21:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hurley was built as a school but Baxterley is a historical one I have added infomation about Hugh Latimer and I am trying to add more information I don't get why these pages need to be deleted MARK BEGG (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The reason cited is WP:NOTE, which means if the article does not meet notability criteria it is a candidate for deletion. Rest assured that Baxterley Church is unlikely to be deleted now, as we have improved the article between us; added references; and found at least one notable thing about the church - the crozier head. I have a small church nearby User:Senra/St Peter's Church, Prickwillow which is being developed in my user-space (less likely to be deleted there) which will probably not meet notability criteria. You and I may have some difficulty with the other churches mentioned by our over-eager new-page patroller, so we should do what we can with these now
--Senra (Talk) 21:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The nom (RadioFan (talk · contribs)) has withdrawn the AfD for those four churches --Senra (Talk) 13:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit ****ed off by RadioFan. You may like to have a look at his talk page. I've also been in touch with Nev1 here. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I am an active rescuist who is losing faith in the system to be honest. I accept that volunteers who patrol new articles are carrying out a thankless and difficult task; I just think the deletion process itself is wrong. We have mechanisms to move articles not meeting guidelines and/or policy to user-space, BLP's excepted from this discussion as a special case. The userfy mechanism only seems to be used if an editor asks for it; I think it should be the default. If an article is deleted for any reason, it should be moved to the articles most active editors user-space. I suspect many articles are being deleted because the original or most active editor does not return within the deletion period (7 days I think); even when they do return, it is usually into a negative situation such as "why are you deleting my article?". They are often met by a long list of wikilinked guidelines and/or policy technobabble [sic] which I am sure is discouraging to say the least. We should be encouraging new editors; not dropping them into a confrontational situation every time they step outside of guidelines and/or policy. We need every new editor we can get according to these Wikipedia statistics. Thank you Iridescent (talk · contribs) for showing me the link to those statistics from within this thread --Senra (Talk) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't lose faith. Persevere despite these power-seekers (my father, long-deceased, called them "little Hitlers", if you see what I mean). We need good-intentioned editors like you (especially if they write good articles on heritage!).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of St James' Church, Stretham

Hello! Your submission of St James' Church, Stretham at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cratendune

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! My first 5,000+ DYK --Senra (Talk) 16:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Cambridgeshire

Hi Senra. Thanks for your message. I've replied at length on my talk page. Any chance we can work together on this? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

answered on your talk page --Senra (Talk) 10:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Have sent you an email. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gohar Jageer

Thanks dear for your kind help and support. Kasuri929 (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Let me know if you need further help with Gohar Jageer or indeed any other articles you may be editing --Senra (Talk) 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch

Hi Senra,
The Christchurch article has had a second review and a problem with the info box has been highlighted. As you put this together, I was hoping you could advise me. The references given in the box require an access date and publisher; and while faffing about with this, I discovered an anomaly. The info box gives the population density as 859 per Km2 but the text gives it as 873 (referenced here). I have checked the Office for National Statistics where the info box data comes from and it gives the area of Christchurch as 5,038 Ha which I reckon to be around 19.45 square miles, not 20.17. How were your figures arrived at? Does the box do calculations/conversions automatically or were these figures put in manually?--Ykraps (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S I am really gratefull for all the help you have given so please don't take offence to my questioning. I am not trying to highlight anyone's mistakes (I have made countless errors myself) just trying to get the article right.

Do not worry; no offence taken. I cannot recall how I arrived at the original {{Infobox UK place}} figures for area, though my sandbox notes show I got them from ONS. Looking again, I would suggest Office for National Statistics is more RS than Dorset for you; this table shows population of 44,865 in an area of 5,038 Ha. This is a population density of 8.91 (as shown in this table). 5,038 Ha converts to 19.45 square miles (using this website) giving 2,306.68 people per square mile. I suspect my original figures are incorrect. If you put your new figure of 19.45 as a value for | area_total_sq_mi = (replacing whatever is there now) the {{Infobox UK place}} will automatically calculate the population density. I hope this helps --Senra (Talk) 12:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
For completeness: 5,038 Hectares is 50.38 square kilometres (50.4 rounded) so a population of 44,865 people in an area of 50.38 square kilometres is a density of 890.53 (891 rounded). I have put the 19.45 square mile figure into the Christchurch, Dorset {{Infobox UK place}}-->| area_total_sq_mi = 19.45 and the infobox automatically shows the following:
  • Area: 19.45 sq mi (50.4 km2)
  • Population: 44,865
  • - Density: 2,307/sq mi (891/km2)
If you require metric units first, then do the following
  • remove 19.45 from parameter "| area_total_sq_mi = "
  • add 50.38 (or 50.4 if you prefer) to parameter "| area_total_km2 = "
  • keep the population as | population = 44865
  • Density will work out automatically
--Senra (Talk) 12:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Our figures appear to be in agreement now but I can't fathom the Boro' Council's. They are working with more recent figures (2007 local census) which puts the population at 45,100 but surely then the population density would be greater?! Oh well, thanks once again--Ykraps (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St James' Church, Stretham

-- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep smiling

The Helping Hand Barnstar
You do great stuff, trying to help new users, and it is a pleasure to 'work' with you. Don't let things get you down, and when in doubt, have a cuppa.  Chzz  ►  20:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Appreciated Chzz, thank you --Senra (Talk) 20:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Counsel and Care

Counsel_and_Care

{{tb}} JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2010/sep/06/care-advice Google News is your friend.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7960213/Warnings-about-couple-left-to-die-in-freezing-home-not-properly-logged-reports-finds.html
Many here http://news.google.com/news/i?pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22counsel+and+care%22 Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
http://www.charitiesdirect.com/charities/counsel-and-care-for-the-elderly-203429.html Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for these links which are useful but unlikely to change the outcome here (though I am still trying). The issue is the charity, whilst noble, has not done anything notable. Still, your attention is very welcome, thank you --Senra (Talk) 10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You maybe correct but there are pages and pages of news links.
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Superb. What would be useful here is to engage the editor, Care4elderly (talk · contribs), as I feel that we may be able to make this article stick IF we can find more about the charities activities between 1954 and now. I had considered emailing the charity but really, this should be up to the editor involved. The charity does seem to have become more media aware since Stephen Burke took over in April 2005. Anyway, thank you for your continued efforts --Senra (Talk) 12:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

{{tb}} JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Talkback}} SunCreator (talk · contribs)

Finding more useful links all the time. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cratendune

{{talkback}} Nortonius (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

New DNB WikiProject

For information: I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, since the time has certainly come when there should be a place for collective discussion of the DNB adaptation effort. Please come and participate. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability

The essay I was looking for is Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. There is also good advice for a new editor with COI at User:Uncle_G/On_notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you. The whole page, by a very experienced (and sensible) admin, is well worth reading, but the key section reads:

When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.

The same idea is explained at WP:Amnesia test. People find it hard to get their heads round the idea, but if properly applied it provides a built-in notability check. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • The issue with the above essay is that topics are often notable but Wikipedians were not fully aware of the fact. Check a passed days AFD for examples. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • When doing so, bear this in mind: The primary purpose of AFD is that, when editors approach it correctly, we have multiple editors, with varying access to sources in multiple parts of the world, all double-checking each other, each independently using the varying means at their disposal to look for sources and apply deletion policy accordingly. Thus we don't get all of the holes in the Swiss Cheese lining up, and we can come to a conclusion that we know has a sound foundation and we can be reasonably confident is the right one.

      We've had some of our best moments at AFD when that happens, and it's the ideal that we continually strive for. When AFD, and consensus discussions in general, are at their worst, in contrast, is when we have a whole load of editors giving off-the-cuff opinions based upon subjective personal criteria and no research, or just plain sheep voting. The holes in the Swiss Cheese tend to line up quite often in such cases, and the results are sometimes very poor indeed. Uncle G (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • This is all very well but I am getting sick and tired of these so called deletionists who sleep at nights knowing full well they have used the proper policies and procedures; not one of them recently has considered the inexperienced editor; not one of them has bothered to look at the history of the editor and offer sympathetic easily digestable advice, well until I said somehting anyway. One of these overworked(?) trigger-happy self-appointed guardians of the wiki is even twinkling, a clearly notable article, within eighteen minutes of creation by a very low edit-count editor! Tell me that is justice; tell me that is growing the wiki; tell me I need to take a chill-pill --Senra (Talk) 21:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If you insist: You need to take a chill-pill. ☺

      Please don't buy into the "you dirty -istas!". That's a division that exists more in the minds of the popular press than actually in reality at Wikipedia. They're used by people as bad names to call other editors, more than anything else. The reality is more complicated, in part because people do not base their approach to Wikipedia on whether one particular mechanism of the MediaWiki software should be exercised or not. They're here to build and maintain an encyclopaedia, not to take abstract philosophical positions on a MediaWiki mechanism.

      The very first article that I ever created here, back in the days before I had an account (and people without accounts could create articles) was nominated for deletion. I'm still here, all these years later. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Churches

I've pointed Jgittins (talk · contribs) in your direction. Uncle G (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on aggressive deletion

It's a power trip for many people who don't have any power over real things in their lives. See Essjay controversy for an extreme case. patsw (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking this same thing. It would be interesting to perform a psychological study of the goings-on at WP:CSD and WP:AfD. 64.40.61.22 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

barnstar!

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar


The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For attempts to improve the way we deal with newbies. It's a huge problem here and it's good to see someone trying to do something about it. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

re your thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Excellent post, thank you. Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Lars Pearson

{{Talkback}}

Churches in Secunderabad

I have made some changes to the following articles:

Please see if that would suffice for keeping the articles from being deleted. Thanks! --Jgittins (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have not copied the information from somewhere, it should be fine. Note that I do not make the decision to delete the article. I will check more thoroughly tomorrow when I should also have access to check other sources myself too --Senra (Talk) 02:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Both edits were copyright violations; I have taken the liberty of rewording and/or deleting to fix the immediate problem; I hope you will be able to help me explain to this new user why copyright violation is a bad idea. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure - I have been hampered with lack of access to library sources over the weekend due essential maintenance on their servers - I should be able to help more now --Senra (Talk) 10:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I support Radagast's plea - please help this user understand that copyvios are not acceptable. He has been told but does not seem to get it: this morning he input All Saints Church, Trimulgherry, yet another straight copy of text from a website. I deleted rather than rewriting as he should not be allowed to think that it is OK to copy stuff in and let other people fix the problem by rewriting it. If he continues, he is likely to get blocked. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that this editor has now been blocked for other reasons. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh well. We tried. If an inexperienced editor does not want to listen, there is not much that can be done. I tried anyway. Thank you for your support here --Senra (Talk) 21:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Certainly you bent over backwards to help; a shining example of how to interact with new editors. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Senra/Archive_3&oldid=1144607216"