User talk:Tarquin Binary

Included in the Inclusionists

Welcome to the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians! Acetic Acid (talk) 09:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Origin of London place names

Yes that's a good idea. Some work has been done at a national level. See British toponymy and List of generic forms in British place names. I know I have at least one book specifically about London place name origin somewhere. Will try and dig it out. Mrsteviec 06:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I love that stuff, specially when you get to: 'river, river, river, river' and that. But I was thinking more in terms of contemporary psychogeography. Not trying to be too Iain Sinclair - but for me it's often just about 'what do you say when people ask where you live?' and 'what do you say when people ask where you were born?' and, and, and... I want to know what a locality really means in contemporary human terms.

OK, I'm a psychogeographer, I fess up... (and I'm not dissing the historical stuff - you can see I dig that too.)

Tarquin Binary 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. People see areas in London differently. Its partly a generational thing. For example, my gran (nearly 90) thinks of Poplar as being an area far bigger than what most people would today. This is partly due to her experience of the met borough.

Yes, my friend from Homerton is ex-Poplar, but Tower Hamlets' had put her in Stepney neighbourhood. For some other purpose (forget what), she was in Limehouse. Tower Hamlets is a real can of worms.

I lived in Surrey Quays for a time and I know for a fact that the locals called it Surrey Docks or if they were far enough north, Rotherhithe buy never by its "new name". When Canada Water tube opened the area got renamed to that by a lot of people (mainly estate agents). The point is the London Underground changed the name of the area twice. I firmly beleive that some people take the identity of the area they live in from the name of the nearest tube station.

Agreed - if there is a tube station. But we have old precedent from pubs too (Angel, Nag's Head), particularly when they appear on the front of buses. Or local open space - we don't have an area called 'London Fields' under Hackney, just the open space. But people I know down there would use that or maybe even 'Cambridge Heath'.

But the strongest force is the postcode. I know someone who moved two streets from one side of Regents Canal to the other (from E3 to E2) when asked before where they lived it was "Bow" and now it is "Bethnal Green". Personally I would call both places "Mile End" but that's just me! Most people beleive that postcodes are aligned to political boundaries and that is the origin of the confusion. Mrsteviec 09:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't disagree with that either - as I have pointed out elsewhere, technically I live in Shacklewell, but am I going to say that when I have an N16 postcode? No way... Oh, and curiously, the friend I refer to above simply ended up saying she lived in 'Mile End' too, though she was a quite a way south of the station - everyone understood that.

There's also the issue that it depends who you're talking to. Not only are you not always trying to sell your house, but it might depend on whether the person is from out of London, from another borough in London, or quite local. I say both Hackney and Stoke Newington, depending. Might add Shacklewell as an option...

Anyway, didn't mean to dis your etymology thing. I think that's good too, but hard to keep brief. Both could be combined, I reckon.

Right now, have a new cam, so off to take some shots, need the exercise.

Tarquin Binary 13:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Please could I try to persuade you to upload your pictures to the Commons ([1]) instead? I know its a bit of extra effort creating an account there, but they can be used by other languages. And everthing has nice clear free licenses. The classification scheme is a little messy but improving (and people usually classify stuff for you). Justinc 22:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I know it's a good cause and all, Justin, but I just don't understand it, basically. It all seems hugely bureaucratic and geeky - and all I wanted to do was brighten up some of our London entries as quickly as I could. It's not that I think my pix are that great as assets anyway, you see as an ex-journalist, I merely see them as a way of prettying up and structuring text articles, of giving a bit of sense of place here and there - not so much as independent objects (though as I'm releasing them as PD assets, I of course have no problem with that happening).

Oh crikey, guilted out - yeah, yeah, I promise to take a look at the CC thing again.

Tarquin Binary 22:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but it is no different from uploading to English wikipedia. Just go to the commons website, make an account (pref same user name) as normal, press upload (I think they may have introduced a delay before new users can upload, not sure), and its just the same. The image links are identical, you dont have to say that the image is on commons. Any free license is fine (eg PD as you have been using, but you must use a license tag or use the dropdown menu or it will be deleted). Thats it. No more bureacracy. Good pictures, bad pictures, just remember wikipedia is a placeholder to remind us to make a better one when we have mroe time... Only reason why I suggest it is that its annoying when you find good pictures on French and German wikipedia and its complicated to use them because they arent on commons. And London is quite well covered pon the otehr languages. Justinc 22:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

its not that important though, and if you mark your pictures as public domain someone else can do it, so dont worry. But it has started to organise into image galleries such as [2] and categories (see under [3]). All a bit fragmentory at the moment but getting better. Almost tempted to make a category for Town Halls. Justinc 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think I see the wider perspective now, and if it's that simple, I'll give it a go (honestly the docs I read were so convoluted at the end they recommended someone else do it for you, so I just hit the PD dropdown).

I'm glad to see, by the way, that this is not a clash between illustrative and photojournalistic (actuality) imaging. While I have huge respect for the latter, I'm mostly concerned with the former here (e.g. I don't mind adding a false sky if it makes for a better illustration). In my view, any kind of illustration (unless it's diabolically bad and/or contrived) adds a spark to any entry that will, I hope lead people to read and contribute to it.

Re: London town halls. I wasn't very serious, but I can think that could actually could be wrapped up with text, dates and some totally geeky pack drill to make quite a nice little photo-piece. London municipal architecture has evolved through various phases and once again we have the illustrations. Hellfire, I seem to keep acquiring public library shots (without even trying) that are hugely indicative... Want to do workhouses? :)

Tarquin Binary 01:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're right, Justin. Just uploaded an (unimportant) shot to CC and it seems perfectly straightforward, so will do that in future (it suggests that maybe some of the help pages should be updated - I got totally the wrong impression, right down to the impression that I should include, for example all my camera settings - I can't be asked, frankly, and I won't ever be doing that). Don't know what the procedures are for transferring existing shots to CC, but if anyone else wants to do that, they are of course welcome.

Oh, by the way, since you're on that detail, check Marc Bolan for yet another pic IP violation. (This is damn annoying, because I wanted to use a Bolan pic for a Hackney entry some time.)

Tarquin Binary 19:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the commons help pages if I get a chance. The camera settings are now included if the file you upload has them in (mainly to let you know that this is info in your jpeg and if you dont want it seen you can remove it - it depends on how you post process and on what you camera outputs). I will see what I can do about Marc Bolan. Alas taking a picture of him is difficult (although there should be a picture of the tree, but I hardly ever go to Barnes). My wikipedia celeb photo count as at 1. But I only got a camera recently and I do see Stephen Fry about once every 2 years. But as I dont watch tv I cant recognise anyone. I saw that guy from the BBC a few years ago too. Glad you found the commons friendly. If I had time I would spend more time on galleries and classification there, as its fun. Justinc 22:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know how that happened now - went to the first bit that said 'Commons:File upload service' that goes on about preparing text files, and assumed it was the upload page. Then looked at some pix and found all this extra info on them and thought no, I do not want to do all this pack drill! So - wouldn't it be a good idea to have a *big* link before that that simply says 'Go ahead and upload your stuff' or something... Sorted now, anyway.

Yeah, checked the thing on the camera settings, didn't even know my cam did that - it's new. Not likely to upload raws, but it's nice to know.

On Bolan, we think alike. My very first thought was, oh, hell, now it's down to The Tree (very biblical and all). If Hackney Council had erected the proposed statue in front of the Town Hall, could have used that, but they didn't. And not likely to cop any celebs either myself, not my line of work, avoid them like the plague, innit?

But I'm now totally happy with Sid Vicious instead, works better with the Edmond Halley mugshot :) Tarquin Binary 03:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes municipal architecture. Is there a picture of Walthamstow Town Hall? I can get Camden and Belsize Park (Hampstead I guess it was) easily. I am aiming to get Stockwell Bus Station soon (not even an article yet). Libraries would be good, there are quite a few around here, like the one I used as a kid. Workhouses? Do any survive? Baths would be good - there is one around the corner, and there is already a request for Swiss Cottage, and there is the famous one further east (Ironmonger Row? or do I misrememebr). I quite like lateral celeb pictures - I added one to Janet Street-Porter, I think it ways as much as a picture of her. I might try to take a picture of the carvings on the wall of Boy George's house if I can get a good shot of its gothicness in too. Justinc 11:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walthamstow? Outer London?? :) Well, in fact there don't seem to be any Walthamstow pix at all. I think I'm sticking with the inner boroughs for now, but it's worth noting. I copped a few shots of Hammersmith a few days ago, including the mess they've made of the old Town Hall frontage, was thinking about pottering round Camden.

Many of the old libraries have been put to a variety of uses. I've used one at Haggerston but didn't record its current use. I forgot to image Homerton old library which is, in fact, now Chat's Palace, a noted local venue (well since there aren't exactly many others, that's not surprising).

Celebs as architecture? Like it - unless one has ambitions as a paparazzi, it's got to be a way. Of course, the 'pedia could form a task force to mail celebs to solicit picture donations...

Oh - have got pix of the ginormous Hackney Wick and tiny Shacklewell Baths, with their (now) quaint separate 'Men' and 'Women' entrances. Tarquin Binary 17:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you come to Camden let me know as thats my patch. Will shortly upload the local baths which not only has men and women but also first class men and first class women. I have friends in Walthamstow so go every now and again. Usually at night though. Justinc 22:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On workhouses

(Moved from above)

On workhouses, the old Hackney Hospital, which I have a pic of, at Homerton was a workhouse before it was a hospital. (I have a feeling it never recovered from its early grim assocation of being forced 'on to the parish'.) Think that there must be many others that found health or municipal uses after the repeal of the Poor Law.

I haven't done much web research here yet, but the workhouses with most historical resonance would be those in Tower Hamlets. I've just been reading East End 1888, by William J Fishman, which deals with the Poor Law in some depth. (This is a great social history). It has a shot of the Poplar Workhouse, but this was on the West India Dock Road, so I don't know if it survived. Some of the others may have, will research. I know that The Sally Army refuge for unmarried mothers off the Lower Clapton road is still there.

A link from the Wikipedia Poor Law entry, http://www.workhouses.org.uk/, has a 'Then and Now' photo section. Quite an astonishing range of building styles, UK-wide, many of them so ungrim they are blatant modern des res. It shows that Mile End and Shoreditch workhouses, at least, survive, though I cannot place that Shoreditch site. Tarquin Binary 18:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poplar Workhouse was demolished in 1960, see http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/Poplar/Poplar.shtml (some good overall London links here, see http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/map/london.html, note this is actually workhouses.org.uk, it just doesn't show so on Google). The 1904 pic is the one Fishman uses. It looks grim, but oddly he reports that it was the most pleasant of the Tower Hamlets workhouses. On that note, most of Fishman's pics, including that one, are reproduced courtesy of Tower Hamlets Library (Local History Collection), who might be persuaded to supply material. (Peter Higginbotham is the site owner, I don't see how he has copyright on that shot, but he seems to be suppyling a great resource, at least, Shoreditch workhouse is in fact deeply familiar, I just didn't know it had been one). Tarquin Binary 18:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a map with the shoreditch one at [4]. I took a picture of the St Leanards electricity station the other day, but I have never noticed the workhouse, although its a bit further up, where the really peculiar pub was (I heard a rumour it had closed - amazing 1970s interior decor, a friend once was an extra in a pub fight scene there after hours). Most of my London books are a bit earlier, though I picked up East End Jewish Radicals 1975-1925 the other day. Justinc 22:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stokey Town Hall

Can you still faintly see the camouflage paint from the war on the part of this nearest Clissold Park? If you knew it was there you could just make it out a few years back when I last looked. I am sure it has faded a lot over the years, but originally they must have tried to dissguise the whole building as part of the park. Justinc 11:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't see it, but I didn't know it was there. It would be nice if there were traces, and it sort of meshes in with the shelter pic, so will check it out on weekend. Tarquin Binary 17:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons categories

I have added commons:Category:London municipal architecture but havent had a chance to add much to it yet (its a bit redbrick). Also note you can add [[Category:Hackney]] etc for those - the categories are a bit sparse now, and lots of pictures are not categorised, but its a start - will do a trawl through the London pictures at some point. Justinc 23:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - I'm slowed up on doing stuff right now, got a real streaming cold and my in-tray is filling up, but I'll make sure to use it, got more images coming. Tarquin Binary 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Category:London parks and commons

Thanks for your reply to my note. You will see that I have not yet got around to writing the stub article on the Hackney parks etc; if I do that next (seeing that I now have a "stock" article ready), would you be so kind, when you have a moment, to cast an eye? Thanks Peter Shearan 09:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - just let me know when it's up. (Was just thinking about greenspace categories, actually - apart from the great landscaped parks, we've got the deliberate urban planning of squares in the West End and other places like Islington, plus little leftover village greens here and there - and of course, common land. Maybe looking at the origins could help with the structure. There's also pre-war allotment areas, postwar 'community gardens', railway land, canal verges, and cemeteries too, come to think of it.) Tarquin Binary 10:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, stub seen. Have several of those I was expecting to fill out, viz Hackney Downs (though haven't a whole lot to say about it, there is a little, and I will get pix), Springfield Park, Millfields and London Fields. I'm inclined to argue that the last is now regarded as a 'district' these days, actually, people will say that's where they live, as it carries a certain cachet. I'd probably add Abney Park too, which has a substantial entry, as this is an important nature reserve. Oh - and Hackney Marshes already has an independent entry, once again an area as much as an open space. And there's the little-known Haggerston Park, notable because it has the Hackney City Farm. Tarquin Binary 10:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'll check on Camden and Islington, though they're not there yet (though the latter has no big parks - well except for Finsbury Park that is...). Have put in a link for Victoria Park on Tower Hamlets. (Those boroughs, with Hackney, are my 'manor'.) Tarquin Binary 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquin - thanks for the offer on Camden and Islington & also for the comments above. I really am working in the dark a bit with many of (for me) the far-flung bits, but I hope I at least get the "feel" of each place, by simply using the Borough website, the AtoZ Atlas and Google. Thanks again .. Peter Shearan 08:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll do some stuff on that this evening. I know what you mean about the 'feel' of an area - I wouldn't feel happy doing stuff on, say, Hounslow or Wandsworth (I reckon East-West as a bigger divide in London than the much-touted North-South divide - I know Lambeth and Southwark quite well, for example). Anyway, if you want any help to the Northeast, just ask. Tarquin Binary 11:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! such service! On my reckoning we only have seven more boroughs to do. I felt that all should be done at once so that (a) it's out of the way and (b) there is some form of continuity throughout, whatever happens to the articles after this. Although some of the remaining ones are way out of my ken, I can still use the borough website and maps to get somewhere with them. I know Westminster fairly well: I lived in a hostel near Knightsbridge tube when I was a youth and did a lot of walking around. In any case the central districts are well covered - it was what triggered my involvement in this, since I felt that the overarching title (London ...) was being usurped by just that section. Thanks again Peter Shearan 18:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm working on Northeast London anyway, so it was a useful exercise, has exposed some absences, and I found the Newington Green piece which was orphaned from its surrounding district and the borough page. Have fixed that now. Yes, I wholly agree with you about the central-inner imbalance. While it's understandable and necessary that 'tourist town' would get all the early coverage, judging from the datestamps, it more or less stopped there quite a while ago, so I'm trying to redress the balance for my borough(s). But even the centre has holes in it, no entry for the Soane Museum, none for Coram's Fields, lots like that. Tarquin Binary 12:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Central London

Got your message just after I'd done a major edit. Please have a look and see if anything needs fixing. I think the structure is better now. Some of the text had some snobby undertones before hopefully most of that is gone. Yeah I'm happy with your definition. I hope the page can be something of the style of a bit of narrative about changing definitions over time, then a list of possible - and quite prescriptive - definitions, and finally the list of districts by borough in the table showing the "core" areas all definitions agree on and the "fringe" districts which occur in some.

And as for Canary Wharf. What troubles me is that on the platform of the tube station one side says "TO STRATFORD" and the other "TO CENTRAL LONDON" so that makes out definition somewhat dubious. :) 18:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, sooner or later I will write my piece about London place names (some of which are for districts that no longer exist, in my opinion, but which live on in the A-Z) which will be partly about the inevitable muddiness of all such definitions in a changing city. I've got some of it written in my head, and hope to illustrate it with signage images - your example is a good one. Glad you've removed the snobbery, by the way, will take a look right now. Tarquin Binary 18:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park

I was just writing The Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association (as you do on a Saturday night), and it mentions " Baroness Burdett Coutts’s beautiful fountains in Victoria-park". Are they still there? Drinking fountains that is, not the spouty things in the lake... Justinc 22:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you (we) mean those fountains in the main lake, just to the West of Grove Road, south of the Deer Park? I will see if I can dig out an image,,,, LoopZilla 13:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A-Z

We already have an article - see Phyllis Pearsall. Apparently at 18 hours a day you can walk all the streets of London in a year. Justinc 11:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've always admired Phyllis. Talk about setting impossibly high standards, though. Must link the Kingsland stuff to that properly. Tarquin Binary 12:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And discussed a lot on Robert Elms' BBC Radio London show. LoopZilla 13:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holloway etc

The Holloway division looks nice (just looked after doing Sydney Waterlow who I was only interested in (despite the park) because of the Improved Industrial Dwellings Society, but I dont have anything on that yet, although I think there are some in Charing Cross Road. I cant believe Highbury Fields is redlinked; used to watch the fireworks from a house there years ago. Anyway I suggested to User:Secretlondon that a photo-walk-meeting would be good one weekend and she agreed (especially if weather agrees); she arranged one once before and said route planning was a good idea, wondered if you had any ideas/interest. Not sure where is least covered/most fun, perhaps east from the City (but near the river or further north?). Justinc 01:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could be up for that, not next weekend, though. Not sure about route, let me think before putting in my 5p worth. But if you're talking Tower Hamlets (which in my opinion needs a lot of work Wikipedia-wise, even though everyone loves the Whitechapel entry), we could rope in User:Mrsteviec, who has been doing a lot of great stuff, including pix, on Hackney and Tower Hamlets entries. Necessary curry opportunities suggest ending up at Brick Lane, of course, but the starting point is an issue - I'm totally used to trundling east from Liverpool St, or south from Shoreditch, so that's boring for me. (At least in the old East End, you barely need to route plan, there's something every few yards.)

Re Highbury Fields, yeah, I was surprised too. I was waiting to get more pix (only have one usable one, of the Boer War statue), but might run up a stub for it tomorrow using that, it's embarrassing that it isn't there. That's also true of Islington Green, I think. Tarquin Binary 01:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a think, I guess we are talking a few weeks out (by which time it may be snowing for all I know). There are 6 or 7 people I can think of offhand, more will come out of the woodwork, so should be able to get a few together. Routes are difficult, as I keep thinking of the ways I walk too. Have a think.

Islington Green isnt much compared to the lovely Highbury Fields. Must get a picture of the cinema in Essex Road though (now the Mecca).

New site trying to combine wikipedia and google maps is [5] (Placeopedia). Personally I hate the google maps interface, but would be nice to add more map links to wikipedia, and I was wondering about how best to link illustrations to places just yeaterday. Justinc 01:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justinc 01:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Islington Green has to have an entry because it's a landmark, even for people from outside NE London. It also has some history. Not a pretty site, though, agreed. The Lotus-pillar cinema on Essex Road (can't place the original name right now) is a must, but so, actually, is the Screen on the Green. Very important independent cinema in 70s-80s, with clandestine gigs by the Sex Pistols and so forth... Re: London routes, one I have been meaning to fill in is south bank from Butler's Wharf towards Greenwich, to see how closely one can hug the river. Advantage for imaging is there's always something to shoot along the Thames. Will check out Placopedia... Tarquin Binary 11:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

de-chaving

I was sure KT had been dechaved before, but thanks for (re?)doing it. You are right the pubs were better. The Pineapple is good again (after closure) though not quite the same. The Lord Stanley is good, but not really Kentish Town, being across Camden Road. Quinns has got better, well not changed but the Camden people have stopped coming there, and they still have the best selection of German and Belgian beers in London (the Dove by London Fields perhaps has more Belgian, and a fine endorsement from the Belgian ambassador, and possibly some writing on the roof, but no German beer). But the ones on the high street are really bad, and while the Abbey Tavern no longer has people arriving from Essex in stretch limos I still havent been in in 10 years (although Pevsner comments on its jocular brickwork). The Assembly House looks better now after a bad patch. And of course the famous Castle with its (long gone) pleasure gardens, well the locals were complaining not about that name change but the one after, when it stopped being a 50s quiff club. I have mostly ignored the article, other than wondering where the apostrophe goes in the old ladies clothes shop, vauely thinking I might rewrite it completely (sometime after British cuisine). Justinc 23:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the perp put it back. I really hate stuff like that. Anyway, mostly remember the Assembly House and of course the Bull and Gate when it was a wonderfully grungy venue (early 1980s). But used to go for bevvies elsewhere in KT, so would recognise other names if I was there. Ho ho, the Dove on Broadway Market - must admit, great food and beer, but I have a down on them, it's a long story. That's why I do have a pic of The Pub on the Park, but not the Dove, on the London Fields page. I really wanted to add a pic of F. Cooke (pie and mash) there, but the one I have is rubbish, as is my old F. Cooke Dalston (Shanghai) pic so have to go and do both of those again. Tarquin Binary 11:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F. Cooke is lovely, havent been down there for ages though; usually end up passing when it is closed; jellied eels needs a picture. I want to get a picture of the eel filing cabinet at Billinsgate, metal lined drawers with eels swimming around in them; I seem to remember it says no photos but maybe if I buy loads of eels he will relent. I will test out the new management of the Assembly House - the last lot were terrible. Lots of places in KT have closed though alas. Have discovered where the local workhouse was - will go and have a look. Used to go to the Village Tap up by Victoria Park sometimes, with the pensioners DJing and lockins every night, proper boozer. Justinc 12:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cally Cattle

>>> Oh, so there is an entry. I was looking for Caledonian Park, will direct the link on Islington parks and open spaces to this one.

Thanks. It is difficult when places change their name! LoopZilla 13:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black helicopters, cattle troughs and Nikolaus Pevsner

[6] sorry wrong indent level, wasnt meaning you. And written whilst pissed off about other things. Justinc 04:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Kinda pissed off myself. I blame the cold. Tarquin Binary 12:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blame the black helicopters eternally circling the flat. Time to go out. Justinc 13:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, grabbing the last few miserable scraps of daylight is the only solution - about to do the same. Anyway, have put another drinking fountain shot up that I don't think we had anywhere - see commons :) Tarquin Binary 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I will make a page for them. I keep finding them at night. 3 more cattle troughs in the last 2 weeks. Photos not good as usually dark, but I know where they are now. Justinc 00:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I can see a Metropolitan Drinking Fountain & Cattle Trough Association Map coming up. But why not? Incidentally, that is the way I feel about shots, take them, what the hell - even the crap ones are records (and bracketed by the shots fore and aft.) I'd really quite like to do that map, because it's so silly, way anorak...

I like the idea of arranging a lot of images by location. I wish my camera had a GPS in it; might have to actually get a laptop again or use a PDA to do it. The interesting thing about the fountains is that there are so many of them, and they often have stories as they were donated (like your Whitechapel one). I wonder how many there are? There used to be more troughs than fountains, but I think most were less durable than the granite ones. I presume a few hundred survive, but I suppose that no one knows, as virtually none are working - yet to see one but maybe in a park somewhere there is one. It would be interesting to pick a street or small area and try to document the "unimportant" things comprehensively and work out a way of making it accessible and interesting. something I have been wondering about for a while. Doing it really well requires a lot of work, but it neednt be a project for one person (have you read London Orbital where you read a passing sentence or throwaway remark and realise it must have taken several days of research?). Justinc 11:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was thinking that about the GPS - does anyone make such a product? I do have a couple of quick fixes. One is to take a quick and dirty placement shot, preferable with a street sign in it, the other is that if I'm on a walk, the location is pinned down some by the shots before and after it. But be nice to have geo metadata, sure. Yeah, I remember there being many more troughs too, going back a way. Incidentally, I always assumed that the fountains didn't work because no-one could be bothered fixing them, but I have caught a reference in passing that water board regulations meant that they had to be rendered inoperative at some point. Can't remember where I saw it, though, have to pin that down. Like the idea of 'sampling' a small discrete area, makes me think of the late artist Mark Boyle (and family) with their fibre-glass square metres of ground (though they were randomising) - case in point WRT accessibility, it does a lot to make ordinary pavements look groovy. London Orbital does make it seem effortless, though a lot of Sinclair's other work stresses how hard he has tried to get a look at some obscure place. Part of the problem is having a decent reference library, the net alone isn't enough, and mine's not that great on London. Tarquin Binary 17:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ought to say also, thank you very much for going on about Pevsner - didn't understand your reference for ages. I wasn't very well acquainted, but I'm now totally awed, and I've (of course) got London North. Utterly indispensable - and now I need London 5. Bah. Tarquin Binary 02:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good. I have London South now too. 5 would be interesting. Justinc 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your photos to find fountains, I see you have been to several places that I went to and didnt upload the pictures as they were mostly too late in the evening and they came out rather dark - added yours to Rachel Whiteread and an article I wrote a while back, Millbank Prison (that bit of the river is rather scenic). Justinc 22:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbs - I thought I'd added Embankment to the Whiteread page. Bet I previewed and didn't save - thanks for fixing it... Didn't know about your Millbank Prison piece, very good, so must check that Pimlico, where I placed the shot, links through. Tarquin Binary 12:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interstingly when I made the Millbank Prison article I discovered that someone thinks that Millbank is a district. So I guess we need a real Pimlico picture. I am not sure that Millbank is anything but a tendancy; when I lived near there I had never noticed it as an area. But when I did the prison article and discovered this I left it as is, and so I guess we need a (stucco?) Pimlico picture. I do have some general ones for Millankk too. Justinc 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lasdun

Denys Lasdun needs illustrating. Which could be Keeling House. I have put in a national theatre image for now, but another one would be nice, and Keeling House needs one anyway, so as its your part of town... Managed to do Lubetkin (although I need a Highpoint one, last lot not very good and its not far). Wonder if there are any other major London architects missing photos? Maybe I will check the buildings Pevsner has illustrations of. I feel a bit of twentieth century coming on. Justinc 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent mission, makes a change from drinking fountains. Bethnal Green is easy enough, and I'm quite likely to pop down that way some time soon. Limited supply of daylight is the problem. I'm not a big expert on individual architects, but my first thought would have been Lubetkin, oddly enough, being interested in social housing (which is why I started that London category on the Commons - I have a plan to photograph all the little estate map signboards as well as the buildings) - and also a friend of mine lived on Priory Green Estate for many years. Anyway, I'd enjoy scouting out this stuff, be educational. Tarquin Binary 23:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is some Lubetkin housing - Spa Green Estate, between Rosebery Avenue and St John St, didnt realise. Seems that the Finsbury plans mostly never got built. Might be worth a note in the Finsbury article. Cant find any photos, think I didnt take any last time I walked through. Daylight shortage quite bad now, though your night fountains are good. Justinc 23:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flash photos, hate them usually, but they seem to work for these small stone structures - brings out the indifferent way they have been cleaned up :) I have done a little research and worked out an opposite idea on the architects. Apart from Haggerston School, which is Goldfinger's only school for the LCC, we don't have much by a WP-referenced architect in Hackney (recent stuff there is - a Foster Special School on Brooke Road, and the Rogers Group's City Academy.) But a lot of social housing and stuff round here was designed by Frederick Gibberd, very well-known in his time, as Google and Pevsner support, though I'd never heard of him till now. But his entry is a stub, as you can see, so that might be the approach, start with the shots, then create the entry - some names will not even have an entry, after all. And I have a Gibberd estate (The Beckers, great name, love it) just at the end of my road. Really need London 5, though, to cover the vast swathes of Tower Hamlets estates. Tarquin Binary 01:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes flash seems designed for rough stone, not people or shiny things. Gibberd does seem extremely stubby, at least a list of buildings would be better. Justinc 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to make a point of sorting it out, not just to expiate ignorance. Liverpool Catholic Cathedral (that is the obvious pic to use for Gibberd, though) is right in the middle of my old Uni campus, and now I find that he designed the nearest estate (as the crow flies) to where I live now, many years later. Spooky. Tarquin Binary 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London water infrastructure

Highpoint very hard to photograph. Hugh Myddleton now has a small article with your pic. Have created Category:London water infrastructure to add more water stuff to - will start a small history. Is there anything at the current/former wnd of the New River, a plaque or something? Justinc 12:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - It's noticeable how the development of NE London is tied in with such, particaulrly the New River and the Lea Valley. The New River piece needs expanding, I think. It has a pic of the source, though. I have a number of New River pics, from Clissold Park and further north, but no plaque so far, not even at the back of Essex Road. There might be one at the New River Head, but that is behind railings at the old Water Board site.

Am hoping to pop over to the Northern Outfall and the Lee Valley reservoirs to see what can be seen sometime, too. Perhaps an idea for that photo expedition you mentioned (in better waether) might be to recreate some of the first leg of Sinclair's London Orbital walk (well before he gets to the M25), since this also skirts the Olympic site now, something of an appendix.Tarquin Binary 12:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Curry

On British Indian Restaurants:

Bangladeshi still the dominant force, but less so now in parts of London and the further one north goes. See edit and citation in article. Dainamo 16:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured portal

Hi mate - just thought you'd like to know that P:L has been nominated by some crazy soul as a Featured Portal... perhaps you'd like to vote for it! File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 10:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis

Have just discovered (and had to therefore write an article on) Ian Nairn, Pevsner's nemesis, English beer drinker to Pevsner's German efficiency. His book Nairn's London (the only one I have so far, in a crap reprint that doesnt have the photos, have to get the original) is wonderful, hilarious, 450 places he loves or hates in London, passageways, pubs, power stations. His areas are larger, sparser than Pevsner's, with mentions of the nearest pub or bar. And he doesnt list anywhere not open to the public; either that or tells you where to go around the back and peer in. Justinc 22:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, just back. Sounds great - must have that one, for the pubs alone :) My Xmas London read has been World's End by Donald James Wheal, which is (mostly) a blitz bio about that area of Chelsea. Some of it doesn't quite ring true, even though the author apologises a lot for his faulty memory (just a little too much - and he starts to tout his novels a little too often near the end), but it's great narrative, and not as distanced, being 1st person, as Silvertown. The main architectural bits of interest, apart from the blitz devastation, are to do with his historical account of Cremorne Gardens, 'pleasure gardens' comparable to Vauxhall, but which seem to have been written out of history. Something to look for traces of when down west...

Oh and I have another Hackney fountain that I must have walked past 20 times without seeing. Took a New Year's Day hangover to render it visible... Tarquin Binary 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year. Its funny how fountains are invisible. I found the trough at Mornington Crescent (of all places) one night, and I walk past there all the time. For various reasons I know Worlds End quite well (long story), must find the book. One of Nairn's favourite pubs was the Finch, opposite the hospital, where he says he could be found writing up the book. Theres not much left in a lot of it after the huge estate was built.

Been going through the listed buildings on Camden councils website seeing which grade I ones dont have entries and adding the categories (eg Category:Grade I listed buildings in London) to entries. Quite a good way of finding new places to visit, and grade I is not too big and ought to be fully covered (though some can be lumped together as at Bedford Square). Camden's notes (link on User:Justinc/Grade I listed buildings in Camden) are quite good, although their photos are not great; not sure what the other boroughs are like, but it is a requirement for them to be available so its likely they would be on the web. Too many churches though; been starting with modern grade I and II* ones. Oh and have a list up Hackney way, as been doing several Denys Lasduns and there are some places in Nairn that I want to see if they are still there, so might come up soon. Last lot I tried to find had all been demolished. Have you seen Spiegelhalters in the Mile End Road? Justinc 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me know if you're coming up to Hackney, could meet up. Yeah, agree about the churches (one reason I took up imaging council estates) but they're kind of unavoidable - don't mind when it is a great local landmark like St Anne's Limehouse, but I get pretty bored with them in general. Funny you should mention Mile End, I just curtailed my last walk there by the V-1 plaque on Grove Road, but don't know about Spiegelhalters, (Google gives me nothing on it), but should be back down there some time soon. Oh - just noticed latest Folio Society ad on back page of Guardian Review. They're doing 4 volumes of Pevsner for Ten quid the lot if you join up (plus a freebie). Of course you then have to buy 4 more books from them if you want to keep the first lot, but they've got some good stuff. May take them up on it.

WRT to listed buildings, have you checked the English Heritage site - http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/? Very variable coverage for London boroughs (Hackney isn't great at all), but a lot of the gaps in Islington has been covered recently by Peter Fuller, who is a friend of mine. Not sure about Camden, though. Tarquin Binary 12:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiegelhalters is a jewellery shop inbetween two halves of a department store. He wouldnt sell out so they built it around the shop, with a curious asymmetry. I will ask my friend who lived down there when he comes back from holiday. Imagesofengland is not good on Camden; either that or their search is terrible. Folio soc sounds good deal, but I hate these book club things. Will come down to Hackney as soon as this terrible weather stops - got so rained on today - mostly took pictures with raindrops on lens. Justinc 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camera windscreen wipers? No, agreed, it's revolting out there. English Heritage's search facility is not good, true, but they also rely on volunteers to photograph given areas, so some are not covered as well as others - I think Camden may be a bit neglected, while Peter and others have done a real thorough job on Islington. Also hate book clubs, but Folio Society are fairly decent and long-established, may take them up on it. Anyway, mail me on tarquin@albedo.co.uk if you are planning a trip up here, will supply mobile number, can meet at pub or something. Tarquin Binary 16:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden signs of weather improvement, at last. Will email. Justinc 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

I award this Original Barnstar to Tarquin Binary for his fine contributions and great images around East London and beyond. (KC)

Happy New Year. I hope you have a good 2006 and continue to enjoy editing. Mrsteviec 11:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, (blush), an award! Thanks, mate. Yeah, I'll keep at the images - it's one way of avoiding Seasonal Affective Disorder after all. With regard to your comment on Wikiproject London, yeah, it would be good to get a featured district together. There are several people doing northeast London, including Justinc, maybe we could select a candidate borough or district and focus on it for a couple of days. Tarquin Binary 12:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript

See Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups for examples. Oddly I have to start learning some javascript myself. Justinc 01:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Main

I found and fixed up a little an article at Thames Water Ring Main. Needs pictures and more info. I cant find an official Thames W page on it either. Justinc 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excellent. It totally needs to be there. I have an immediate pic (the Stokie one), but need to put up that Shepherds Bush one/two. Will read your entry properly tomorrow, though, am post-pub quiz. Tarquin Binary 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke Newington

Yep. Am quite aware of the complexity here, just thought I'd query it anyway. Morwen - Talk 17:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, St Luke's appears to be of very little use as an area name now except perhaps referring specifically to the pointy bit of Islington. However, it was still shown as such on the maps I consulted. I'm planning to be doing some more stuff about historic central London parishes (see St George's, Hanover Square), will be careful. Morwen - Talk 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I enjoy these questions. Looking forward to your entries - I was hoping to disentangle the old parishes of Hackney - and the even more significant Tower Hamlets - myself sometime. They do not actually map on to modern sub-divisions - or postcodes - very well.

I think that entries on old urban sub-divisions are great, but I just think it misleading to suggest to people that they are part of the current vernacular. Because of differences between generations, people living in the same district may not even necessarily agree on the correct term for their area. To simplify this, general practice in Hackney (and the equivalent is true in other boroughs) is to use the borough name if you are talking to someone who is not familiar with East London, but the district name (of your choice!) otherwise. Except for districts that are fairly well-known throughout the capital - Stoke Newington is fairly well-known. For non-Londoners who have never lived in The Smoke, the borough name is usually used. Yes - I get muddled myself... Tarquin Binary 17:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Yes, the not always reliable A-Z has St Luke's as a district, with its centre south of Old Street, not at the old church (now an arts centre - I will get a photo). So I confess that it probably therefore has some validity in this area, though I have (ancedotal, I know) never heard the term used. People thereabouts are much more likely to refer to Clerkenwell, Smithfield (which, of course is a City area) or even, in fact, Barbican or Farringdon, generally ID'd as City locations (east of Fleet ditch, that is). (I would say I was going down to Farringdon when I worked in that area many years ago.) Barbican residents (who are most of the residential population of the City) will definitely say they live in or at The Barbican. Tarquin Binary 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, just for a laugh, historically, Moorfields, another cross-borough area (City/Islington), has a claim on some of St Luke's. But if anyone uses the term, they are generally referring to the Eye Hospital, which is not in the district, but moved to the City Road. This area would generally be subsumed into Smithfield or Clerkenwell. OK, I'll shut up now... Tarquin Binary 18:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, categorise away. I just ended adding up stuff by default to that article, although it does raise the point of how exactly we should split churches/civil parish/church parishes - there are three separate entities here with different endings but the same start. Morwen - Talk 07:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Parishes

Hi. I've been watching your discussions on parishes of the Metropolitan area / county of London. I was wonderiing how to seperate the civil part from the church descriptions myself. I have a deal of info on these. If they put an extra day in the week I could even try making a map. I wonder if they shouldn't be seperated as *Name of parish* (church) and *Name of parish* (parish) articles, but linked, or if there should be a template with a section describing the church and then another on the civil admin. Not sure. I can (one day soon) provide a List of Civil Parishes in the Metropolis / County of London 1855 -1899. Not sure about the title tho'...Lozleader 09:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm kind of oriented towards post-1899 local govt, but I am interested in this (always looking out for parish boundary markers to image, but most of these have been lost in East London). It is a messy business, particularly when the concept of Poor Law 'unions' comes up. It could be argued that unions were an earlier stage of amalgamation of administrative parishes before boroughs, although limited in scope - they mostly administered workhouses across several parishes. As the WP Poor Law entry says: '(The areas of the Unions were later used for other functions, such as the districts for civil registration)'. Mission creep. (And there are many 'union chapels' around London, which term has an obvious ambiguity for modern folk.) It should also be noted that large scale projects were largely the domain of the Metropolitan Board of Works before the LCC, so some parishes didn't have a whole lot to do except administer the Poor Law...

Anyway, I think I would just bash in all the churches that have admin parishes for now, with a para on the parish. I reckon that only some administrative parishes (like George's in the East) are likely to prove notable enough to deserve a separate entry. Obviously links forward to the Met/Municipal borough level help too, and that level should list the admin parishes/unions from which they were formed. Pretty good, gives us somewhere to put Inner London church pix (too many around to put them on borough/district entries, unless they are of special note) and boundary markers.

Slight addition - I also forgot to mention 'vestries' - another important stage up. Hackney, for example, went parish->vestry->Met boro->London boro, accumulating territory each time.

Tarquin Binary 13:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Shoreditch certainly *was not* administered by 21 parish councils. There was only one civil parish (St. Leonard), whose vestry took on local administration. The parishes listed are *ecclesiatical parishes*, and had no local government role. I don't think any parish formed after the 1830s was ever used in a civil role. I don't think this is the place for them - but where? Lozleader 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you know the pre-1899 stuff, I'm a bit blank there, didn't know there was just one admin parish. He did actually mean 21 shared between Shoreditch, Hoxton and Haggerston, but still... I think we just have to can that info, frankly. Incidentally, the author also suggested that the names live on as local govt wards. In fact, not one Hackney ward is named after an old parish - I just double-checked. (But I think if we could get a list of old units on to the met borough pages that would be cool, kind of an audit trail. It should always, maybe, be added that Middlesex council was a higher level authority, that seems to be missing in most cases, and maybe the MBW should be mentioned.)

I guess the where, would be entries solely concerned with CofE ecclesiastical matters, but I'm not up for editing that, not my kind of thing - though I don't mind photographing churches if there are entries for them. Tarquin Binary 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck the parish information on its ownio at Shoreditch (parish). Plenty of churches for you to shoot - tho' they may be gone or carpet warehouses by now! Needs cats now...

Incidentally I have ancestors from St. Luke's - my ggggrandfather was still giving his birthplace as "St. Luke's, Middlesex" in the 1891 census, so it must have had some meaning then.

Lozleader 19:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, surely, it would be a quite distinct area pre-1899 - like St George's in the East, too, but now that's just (mostly) Stepney. The process is continuous, too. There's a bit of a struggle on to stop South Hackney (a genuine old settlement) being named 'Victoria Park Village' (estate agents). And who uses Millwall to refer to anything other than the football club? Finsbury has become mostly of historical interest, even though it was a whole borough, most people down there say they live in Clerkenwell (or maybe The Angel or Islington). Even Poplar nearly became extinct recently, mainly because it became dominated by Docklands, but it seems to have squeaked through as a placename. All part of London's rich tapestry, I guess...

Re: other churches on your parish entry. Only St Mark, Old Street seems to be still there in any form, but references are few. Tarquin Binary 21:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspect a Hornsey (parish) page might be in order. I see there is a Matthias Road in in Stokie, nmaed after the then new church. That along with Stoke Newington Church Street means they have left some impression on the place even if the churches were to dissappear! Lozleader 09:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed an issue here, which is that when there is a horizontal link across to a neighbouring civil parish, it may often be misleading to substitute a modern day district, for reasons I have banged on about tediously. This is shown in the case of Hornsey. Might be better just to redlink it to the (parish) page.

Stokie Church St has both parish churches still intact, see pic on Stoke Newington, likely I will add this info to the parish stuff. And I believe the small church just up from Matthias Road is eponymous.

Wondering, incidentally, if linking Anglican parishes so closely to civil ones (in C19 that is, I realise that if you go further back they become one and the same) is a good idea. I find the data useful, and I have no great axe to grind as an atheist, but RCs and non-conformists may feel a tad left out. (Non-conformism and dissent was a big historical factor in this part of London.) Tarquin Binary 12:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They did retain administrative links until 1894/1899, though - the same vestries did both administering of Church affairs and the civil ones - in areas where the parishes matched - I don't know how this worked practically where they didn't. So whilst I can understand cleanly separating them (e.g by making it clear that Church of England is involved rather than just saying 'ecclesiastial'), I think trying to split them entirely would be rewriting history, and I don't think a half split would be workable. Morwen - Talk 13:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Just anticipating later objections. Not fussed myself, because I'm content with separation of church and state after 1899. Anyway, you guys are doing a great job (and I realise you are not exclusively concerned with London, which would be taxing enough in its own right) because having all these extra admin atoms makes rewriting district entries that much easier - means that one can cut to the chase without waffling on about merging parishes. I wouldn't seek to make it more complex. Might artwork up a special London medal for things like this in place of a barnstar... Tarquin Binary 13:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a random note, if you click [7] here, vision of britain will give you a nice map of the historic St Luke's parish. Good luck trying to figure out what those streets relates to in 2006. ;). Morwen - Talk 19:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's quite readable because you can steer by the canal. Thx, interesting. The A-Z definitely has it too far south and west. Fact is, I think it might be worth expanding St Luke's now as a proper entry because although I know a lot of people in that area consider the southern and western parts of it to be Clerkenwell, there is no satisfactory district term for much of the area shown on that map (which actually doesn't claim the Barbican). If in doubt people would just say 'Islington', but I think it's a good encyclopedic entry. Tarquin Binary 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Gardens

Thanks for adding the picture of Gibson Gardens. I hadn't got round to doing it myself and yours is probably better than mine! (I live in the Gibson Gardens). Tony Tony Corsini 16:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Tony Corsini[reply]

Excellent. I've a couple more shots if you need them. I'm local myself, by the way - Amhurst Road. Maybe compare wikinotes at the Roch some time... Yeah - I felt it was only fair to throw in the pic, because I totally changed your small dig at Raines Court on the Stokie Common entry and added a pic of it. I kind of like Raines Court, but seeing as how you live in Gibson Gardens, I can imagine why you have a totally different view, I might well feel the same. OTOH, it gives the opportunity to refer to modular housing, which is another topic to wikilink to later. Nice one re: Barbara Windsor - I didn't know she grew up down my way, actually. I'm progressively trying to improve and reorganise the Stokie piece, been moaning about how bad it was for ages without doing anything about it, so nice to know someone else is chiming in. Tarquin Binary 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints'

Yes, very strange that we should be both be out with our cameras. Also strange cos most of my stuff goes on FLICKR now since it it tends to be more friendly and fun! LoopZilla 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, was thinking of doing Flickr. (Hey, Gultronics, can't remember when I last got anything from there, probably old Commodore Amiga days...) But guess I'm focused at the moment on filling out NE London WP articles, hence Commons. But always picking up pix that aren't quite WP stuff, so maybe I'll check it out later. Was on a yomp to Leamouth on Saturday, but thought I'd see how Poplar was doing on the way, remember Chrisp Street Market well. Maybe do a joint East London photo-session some time? Tarquin Binary 15:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Moselle

looks good to me!! all I would add is that the Moselle caused fooding problems along the High Rd near to Scotland Green nearly every year until the late 1960´s when the culverting was rebuilt as the site was re-developed (Millicent-Fawcett-Corset)(court). aus Berlin IsarSteve 11:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added para to that effect. Hopefully will do more work on Tottenham articles soon. Tarquin Binary 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to that! P.S. many thanks for the shot in Tottenham Cemetery. I´ve pinched it for my private collection, as it´very close to where my great-great and great grandparents are buried... hope you don´t mind!! IsarSteve 15:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, delighted - CC licence after all, and tend to waive attribution for graves and war memorials, it's only right. I have some shots of the cemetery, which I will put up shortly, I hope, and do a WP entry for it. I may go back there soon, it's a nice spot (I was up the High Road today, but heading for the Lee) so if you want me to get a shot of the exact grave, you could mail me directions relative to that shot and the names. Tarquin Binary 19:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton House

Hi- I was surprised that there was no page for Sutton House, the oldest house in East London on Wikipedia so I have created a stub article for it. I just wondered if you have a picture of Sutton House in your extensive collection to add? I have not been able to get over there to take one and I have not added pictures before! Tony Corsini 22:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sure do. Not brilliant, was hoping to get something better, but I think it'll serve. Let me go look... Tarquin Binary 23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, wanted one without the foliage, but can do that soon, this will serve for now. Oh - changed 'oldest building' to 'oldest residential building'. Unsure about oldest building in East London, but St Augustine's Tower is older in Hackney. Cheers - a much needed entry, by the way, and I have a number of friends who will be happy you put it in Homerton... Tarquin Binary 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like foliage in building pictures. Presumably this is grade I listed given the date? Justinc 23:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grade II*, agreed it should be Grade I, yes. Foliage all very well, but you kind of want the roofline for an encyclopedia shot, I think. For why I Hate Trees (sometimes), check the Round Chapel on Lower Clapton - will try and get both of those before the leaves come back. Tarquin Binary 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to category. Cant believe Hackney Empire has no article. Could do with interior shot. Have decided that many buildings were intended to be viewed with the surrounding trees - why else build this on the park:

My RfA

Hi mate,

Thought you'd like to know I've decided to throw my name into the hat for adminship... you're testiment to my greatest achievement on Wikipedia so I'd be pretty chuffed if you could put it a good word!

Cheers, DJR (Talk) 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, blimey. You organised a portal. Just dunno why an excellent content provider like you would want to be an admin, but it's your choice. You got my vote... Tarquin Binary 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll probably end up regretting it... but as it stands I need a few more supporting votes to get by anyway... Cheers, DJR (Talk) 11:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney History

Good Work on Hackney Brook, just what I was after. I flicked through the Hackney Central page and it is a shame there is no history content. There is some good material from the History of Middlesex on the land developement of the area so if I get time this week I might have a stab. 217.37.160.149 17:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Away on hols?

where are you hiding yourself?? not seen or heard from you for a while... as we say in Berlin.. allet OK? IsarSteve 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workload piled up. Plus been distracted by Flickr. Otehrwise all well. Will be back soon, Northeast London articles to do... Thanks for asking, Steve. Tarquin Binary 19:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shame you´re not about

Hello Tarquin! I just wanted to mention that I have noticed that you´re not about anymore..or are you?? Are you in Love?? on Hols?? or have you found a LIFE after WIki?? Whatever the reasons, I for one miss your contributions.. I´m still the same BOF sitting here.... correcting...deleting... wikifying... IsarSteve 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC) correcting.... deleting...wikifying... lol[reply]

Many thanks, it really is nice to be missed, Steve. I promise I'll be back. That Flickr stuff is too addictive and have had a lot of work too. So I'm usually here right now:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/albedo/

(If you're into pix Flickr's far more interesting than Wikimedia, because you tend to get - and give - a lot more feedback and, unlike WP, I have to say, it's generally good-tempered. On the other hand, apart from writing, I kind of like doing the straight factual pix too, as adjuncts to articles, that WP requires.)

But I've just been given a heads-up about this:

Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs_in_London

I can't believe there is nothing for Aldgate and Wood Green for a start (and the articles are not great), so I'll be on this case soon. I think I may have some new Tottenham pix too. Tarquin Binary 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I liked your flickr. site especially Walthamstow Stadium. I´m here:- :http://www.isarsteve.de/blog/ IsarSteve 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo Matching Service

Hi there,

I'm contacting you because you listed yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. You might be interested in a new wikiproject page that lists photographers and articles that need photos by location. The page is located at Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service or WP:PMS GabrielF 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just logged back in after a very long absence. A useful page, Gabriel, indeed I believe I can fill some gaps. In fact, though, I know many London articles above and beyond those listed that need pics too. Hope to upload some new ones soon, anyway and clear some off the list. Tarquin Binary 13:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that page you cite is only the tip of the iceberg for missing pix (very few streets have pix for example, it's not really worth listing them, better just acquiring shots). But keep finding stuff in the archives, so will continue to fill in. Tarquin Binary 15:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Glc.gif, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 14:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tottenham

Wot fed up with Flickr mate?

Thanks for the message, I'm glad you're back too! I'm looking forward to your input as "man on the ground" so to speak..

p.s. I fink your flicks are fab! -- I Often take a look

--IsarSteve 10:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, still Flickring, but some pix are WPish, some are more Flickrish... Tarquin Binary 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies ...

Started going down a vandals contribution list, only to find you'd been there before ... excuse me for any damage! Kbthompson 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's OK. I'm not usually patrolling much, just doing a bit of duty right now. Glad you're on the case too. Nice work you've done on Islington history, by the way. Hope to do some more on that piece and other LBI stuff soon. Tarquin Binary 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got up to the modern era, probably needs a good copy edit but I think the structures right. Maybe do some work on the borough page. The gentrification section can probably be lost, but whatever goes there needs to indicate modern Islington's popularity amongst (self appointed) movers and shakers. Kbthompson 12:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know spurious accuracy amuses you. Someone is 'sticking pins' on the City of London; did you know that Aldgate is in Bevis Marks; or that Aldersgate has moved to the roof of an office block, halfway to Barbican Station. Plus ca change Kbthompson 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raptornet

I left a discussion on the differences between London and City of London at User talk:Raptornet. I hope he at least reads it. I have also asked him to stop his edits, which appear to be unintentionally disruptive.

Should he continue with his edits, however, I suggest going to WP:AN if you have not already done so. I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London. What are your thoughts on this? Have you taken any administrative actions yet? Dr. Submillimeter 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assume goodwill, I guess, though I note that he has blanked the United Kingdom page once and seems to additionally keep removing bits of copy and occasional images on a whim (that's aside from adding unnecessary England links even when it is not the City, which are not needed). No, haven't gone to WP:AN and no admin actions (I'm not actually an admin), hoping he'll listen to us. Tarquin Binary 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to leave some of the changes from "London" to "London,England". The extra disambiguation is useful and not disruptive. (For all we know, London, Ontario may have a Trafalgar Square or a National Gallery. It does lie on another Thames River in a Middlesex County.) Moreover, it would help demonstrate what is considered a "good" edit to User:Raptornet. Dr. Submillimeter 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. In any case, those are I suppose not actually damaging, just annoying. Tarquin Binary 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Ramsay and Limehouse

I noticed you reverted the deletion of the new gastropub associated with Gordon Ramsay from the Limehouse article. See the talk page for Limehouse re the wikipedia guidelines for the inclusions of notable people.

Firstly - this gastropub has no notability as a building. As a gastropub - it's only just opened and inclusion might be justifiably seen as advertising. Plus I don't think Wikipedia is an arm of Gordon Ramsay's marketing machine! ;)
Secondly there is no reference for the information from a reliable source. All information included in an article should be capable of being referenced and that includes local notables (ie people). If you want to revert can you please find a reference for this brand new gastropub
Thirdly, in my view references to local notable people should have a rather stronger association with the area. Simply owning a business in the area would mean any number of notable people ought to be named in all sorts of places. IMO, a long-establised association with an area and a local business of some significance might seem a sensible reason for identifying an individual - but I don't think the gastropub which has not been around for very long ought to qualify on that basis.

On the basis of the above do you still consider your reversion is appropriate? We can discuss on the London page re wikiguidelines if you want to make a case for inclusion. Cosmopolitancats 02:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References? Its existence is verified by everything from trade rags - http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=52862&c=1 to national dailies - http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2043507,00.html Grief, sometimes this reference thing seems to be about denying reality.

Marketing? I hardly thing Ramsay needs any help from WP, OTOH noting that one of Britain's top chefs is managing his first pub in a particular area in itself says something about the current status of the area. Perhaps we should consider deleting the Gordon Ramsay article on the basis that it is marketing?

Utterly disagree re: 'local notable people' for the obvious reason that the piece does not list him as a local notable person.

At worst, a harmless piece of local colour, IMO...

But as you wish, I don't do edit warring (or at least I don't feel strongly enough about this to rv it again.) Tarquin Binary 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulation and aggregation

On second thoughts, I'd best post my reply here ...

Pic looks about right. On the other matter, I quite agree that it is a distraction. The person concerned has strong views, and pays little heed to consensus. We've talked before about the need for substance in so many articles, they are now turning into so many Chinese-style precooked ready meals ... my PoV on the changes; there is work to be done on those topics, but this is being done in an inappropriate way and without thought to structue. I still blame you for pointing me at Stamford Hill, it was trench warfare developing a NPoV article. For the rest, always better - and more satisfying - to concentrate on what interests you. I did an awful lot of non-contentious stuff on theatres this month - the barnstar came from that, although what is the point of gold stars. If I were better with graphics, maybe a ripe cheese could be awarded - wake up one morning to find a stinking bishop on your page!

Hopefully, there is light at the end of the tunnel, two seasoned editors are on the point of producing a way forward for UK cities that doesn't rely on Cheesie flavoured nibbles. Once all the rows on UK-templates are out of the way. Kbthompson 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Glc.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of London

You said that you might like to help with the splitting of the History of London article. I meant to do this ages ago but kept getting distracted. You might like to look at the sub-pages I've made Roman London, Anglo-Saxon London, Norman and Medieval London and Tudor London. One of the problems I have is cutting the text on the main page down. I often dont know what to keep or what to cut. G-Man * 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in ...

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. I revised the pages at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Please consider adding your name to the top of the page at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in London and to any of the other subpages for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

File:Shacklewell green.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shacklewell green.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetica Museum

I'm thinking of tagging Kinetica Museum for deletion as non-notable. It has recently been expanded by anon editors, but without citations. I see that you created it so am asking for your comments first. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Hackney wick1.jpg

File:Hackney wick1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Hackney wick 1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Hackney wick 1.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hackney wick3.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Hackney wick 3.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hackney marshes2.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Hackney marshes 2.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Homerton2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Homerton2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Hackney marshes1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hackney marshes1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:St augustines.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:St augustines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hackney empire2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hackney empire2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 11:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mama interior.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Mama interior.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:{{subst:usernameexpand|Tarquin Binary}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template.

If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hackney empire.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hackney empire.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hackney wick2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hackney wick2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glc.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Glc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]