User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Timrollpickering. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
- This is an archive of past discussions on my talk page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Notability
Quick question. In your opinion would the Dromore by election meet notability?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not really enough for an article. Definitely not without the TUV début and even with it there have been umpteen local authority by-elections that have been the first electoral contest for a new breakaway party. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I suppose so......Traditional unionist (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey....
I'm not sure if Sinebot is gonna beat me, but you forgot to sign your latest inclusion on talk:sarah palin. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't mine - I was trimming down an anon's misuse of the headers that was distorting the contents table. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
QMUL SU
The QMSU have a new logo: http://www.qmsu.org/files/copy_of_full_qmsu_logo_black.jpg 79.78.107.142 (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- That one's not exactly new - it was in use when I started many moons ago! But I think they've gone back to it. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Template
Hello. I tend to assume that you know everything there is to know about Wikipedia! I made some changes to Template:Heads of Houses. These took effect automatically on Richard Turnbull but on the others they haven't taken effect unless I have edited the page - just editing and saving changes, not actually making a change to the text. I have done this to most of them but I have left some unchanged (the ones in the middle - I started editing from the beginning and end planning to meet in the middle, for no particular reason). Do you know what this has happened? I thought the template would just change automatically on all the pages.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Templates are strange beasts and don't always respond immediately to changes. Some take time to take effect. I'm not sure why this is. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
BATL move request
Hi Tim. I'm dropping you a line because you were previously interested in this topic - please see [[1]]. Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, lovely, thanks very much. Have a nice weekend. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you know how his name is pronounced please? Could you include it on the article? It looks French, but I guess it could have been anglicized.--195.194.143.91 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Marr-Kwand" is my best phonetic guess, but that's only a guess and I don't know the IPA symbols that some insist on being the only way to (not) convey information on pronunciation. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Lord Mandelson
The Lords Hansard has "Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham". [2] What's your source for the alternative form? Has it appeared in the London Gazette yet? JRawle (Talk) 13:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- This arose because a previous edit changed it to "Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool" and when I corrected it back to "Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham" I hadn't see that you'd already got there with the other capitalisations. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Unfortunately both this and the title in the opening have been changed incorrectly a number of times, probably due to all the media coverage Mandelson is getting compared to other new peers.
- I do think "County of Herefordshire" is a proper noun, so should be capitalised. The other difference is whether there's another "of" before the second territory. Perhaps I'll wait for the London Gazette to see that. I'm sure it'll have been changed a few times before then anyway! JRawle (Talk) 18:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- As ludicrously repetitive as it is, "County of Herefordshire" is the name of the current unitary authority (although as Hartlepool is only in Durham ceremonially it's not 100% consistent but then neither is Mandy!). But the official proclamation should settle things. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Herefordshire is a ceremonial county too, so I suppose it's consistent. I don't think I've seen unitary authorities' names used for peerage designations, even though London boroughs are. Hartlepool is officially a borough, so it would have to be, "of Hartlepool in the Borough of Hartlepool". JRawle (Talk) 20:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I meant that ~shire makes "county of" redundant but silly names abound in local authorities. (Also I think there are differences when the unitary authority covers an actual county rather than a borough, though that may just be the Isle of Wight.) Timrollpickering (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
President of the United States of America
Hi, you locked the article but didn't format the infobox correctly before doing so, so now the beginning of the article is all messed up and not many people can do anything about it. It did need protecting, I'm with you on that, but it would've helped if you looked at the article before doing so, especially as a lot of people will be viewing this page at this time. Feudonym (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because the server is running on overtime getting the protection on was the priority (especially as edit wars make it worse). I'll have a look for the problem code now. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the problem was on the template and made after I protected the article. I've reverted the template error. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Many apologies. Thanks for correcting the error. Feudonym (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Another comment: I agree the article probably needs to be locked down pretty tight at the moment, but any sort of notice (like the little padlock icon) anywhere on the main article page or on the discussion page would be very welcome indeed. Sakkura (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
British Gun Laws
Yes, my friend, they are completely different - so why don't you remove the text about the UK lacking a gun lobby? The US gun lobby could not exist if it were not for the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. 76.237.239.102 (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Political lobbies do not need clauses in constitutions to exist or not. The lack of an organised gun lobby is a significant comparison, the lack of "constitutional protection" irrelevant because that is about the wider UK constitution not whether or not there's an anti-democratic entrenchment. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct - they do not need them to exist - only to be effective. This is probably why the UK lacks them - because they would be ineffective due to the lack of extant common law protecting gun ownership in the UK. 76.237.239.102 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- No the UK has a very different culture and spread of gun ownership which is why attitudes are so different. If people wanted widespread legal access to handguns we would have it. It's telling that in the recent moral panic about knife crime hardly anyone serious has suggested "hey everything would be okay if everyone was able to carry handguns!" It's got nothing to do with the wider issue of the lack of a constitution. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the UK's culture is a reflection of its Constitution, or rather its lack of a single Constitutional Document. Gun ownership in the UK was once widespread, but has diminished over the last century due to political activism. This type of activism was less effective in the US due to the 2nd Amendment. I am not advocating gun ownership, only trying to explain its persistence in the United States. 76.237.239.102 (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's wrong to regard "political activism" as the reason for "diminished" gun ownership. Even when gun laws were weak or non-existent not that many people owned guns. Whilst there is a strong fields sports culture, it's traditionally been a rural pasttime with a minority following (and there's the class issue). Also in the UK no-one ever made a coalition between the right of farmers to have shotguns to control pests & fieldsportsmen to partake in their sport with notions of urban self-defence. Note that in 1940 (long before most of the current laws were called for) when the country was under threat of invasion there weren't that many private citizens who had firearms, which reinforced the problems of weapons shortages when the British Home Guard was formed.
- The UK may not have a rigid constitution but it has a political culture that doesn't need one. Conventions are far more accepted and there isn't the resource to courts and overarching laws all the time. Look at the recent debate over having 42 days detention for terrorism suspects (i.e. people not even charged). That didn't need a constitutional clause to block it. Or at our elections - they're run by an impartial service and the laws on them are decided by general consensus in parliament not a stacking of the dice by whichever party is in control, and only rarely do they end up in courts. You certainly wouldn't get thousands of lawyers descending on a constituency that might be disputed. In this perspective if there was a widespread perception of some inherent right to own "guns" then ownership would not be restricted. But that would be a right understood as some inherent right, not some a bunch of judges playing word games with a bit of text written over 200 years ago. And it wouldn't interfere with things like gun licensing, something that most gun owners have always supported. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"protecting" the Veep
Hey,
Thanks for adding the protection to Vice President of the United States! It should lead to stability to it and related articles until the inauguration. It annoys me that Americans don't know the basics of the US system. - Thanks, Hoshie 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
As a previous active contributor of WP:UNI/COTF...
We are starting WP:UNI/COTM, please review the ten randomly selected nominees and vote for the articles you wish to improve. (Category:WikiProject Universities COTM candidates) The COTM will run throughout the month of December. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or comment on WT:UNI/COTM. Have a great day! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
A new round of Collaboration of the Month is about to begin!
| The current University Collaborations of the Month is University of California, Berkeley |
| |
|
Every month a B-Class higher education-related topic is chosen for you to improve. Be bold! | ||
Yes, it's that time! A new article has been chosen our COTM next month.
Here's something I want to try, start treating it as a peer review. Start by skimming through the article, making sure the article fits our article guidelines. Then review for content: any copyvio, notability issues, reference listings, following the Manual of Style. Again, let's make sure we stick to the objectives listed on WP:UNI/COTM. Feel free to use the talk page of the article or COTM page to reflect or express opinions on how to make this program even better. Feel free to utilize #wikipedia-en-robotics connect if you wish, that channel doesn't get used enough and I'm usually there if I'm near a computer.
And here's something even more radical. See if you can attract authors currently maintaining the different COTM articles to join our WikiProject and better yet, our COTM project. I found when I started this program, jumping ships and editing other universities' articles was a big leap, but it's been very fun so far. I'd like to see more people actively participating.
Let's start off the new COTM program the right way. I want to see those articles in GA and FA soon. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday and enjoy those Black Friday deals. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 09:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Unity Party (United Kingdom)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Unity Party (United Kingdom), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Queen Mary Students' Union
Orphaned non-free image (File:Qmsu.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Qmsu.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
picture for Matt Smith Doctor who page
Hello.. I am a bit new to wik so please bear with me.. I wanted to add a picture for the Matt Smith Doctor Who page.. Got the picture off a doctor who news site .. It is a great pic with Matt in front of the tartis..Not sure how to get it added to wik.. Please let me know if possible.. Thank you .. Lynda picture link is below http://www.gallifreyone.com/images/news/_45343451_newdoctor282.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndaflpn (talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Without information about the source and whether it's a free use or fair use picture it can't be used under the Wikipedia rules. Do you have this information? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama infobox
Re [3]: Actually, the infobox in Bill Clinton used to say "William Jefferson Clinton". It was changed only recently, when some people wanted to keep the middle name Hussein out of the infobox in the Barack Obama article. "Incidentally", the middle was --all of a sudden-- deemed inappropriate in infoboxes in several other presidents' articles (e.g. [4], [5]) and the middle names were removed by some of the people who were aggressively arguing against including the middle name in the infobox title on Barack Obama. Before that, it was absolutely stable, long-standing consensus that the full name was used in the infobox for articles on U.S. presidents.
I'm tired of arguing against the cabal of well-meaning but entirely misled idiots at Talk:Barack Obama, of whom I realise you're not a part. Just wanted to set the record straight, but decided against replying there when I saw some usual suspects reliable creep up and make barely related comments. Business as usual. I fully realise that reason is absent from that talk page, but that doesn't prevent from at least clearing my conscience by providing the most valid reasoning and conclusion I can come up with, if only for the sake of it having been mentioned. I still think "William Jefferson Clinton" is more appropriate ("presidential"?) than "Bill Clinton" and I think the same about both Bushs and Obama. However, the reasoning of pointing to the other articles is clearly invalid, as they were all changed in a concerted effort to keep Obama's middle away from the title of that infobox. As I said, the people who did that are not bad guys, just well-meaning retards whose fear of Ann Coulter is greater than the power of the PEOTUS's own reasoning in using his middle name for the inauguration. 78.34.128.236 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Helpme tag - what does it do?
Dear Tim, do you mind telling me what the "helpme" tag actually does? I'm tempted to experiment with it on my own page or a test page but it would be crying wolf, as I only really want to see its effect, not actually use it myself. Sorry to be a nuisance - it's just that I keep seeing it on new user welcome pages and I have a vague feeling that I should be familiar with its effects! I did make an (obviously half-*rsed) attempt to find some documentation on it here but without luck so far. Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it's not a template I've ever made much use of. I think it's just there to welcome new users but I honestly don't know. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks and not to worry. I will suss it out somehow! Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion. I notice you have edited there before. thanks Ikip (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tim. I see that the main QMUL article has had a similar going-over from the same QM someone, their PoV being "everything is wonderful here". Of course it is, but I wondered if the article needs a little eye keeping on it for a while. No bad faith of course, just the usual. I've removed some of the more extreme adjectivism but it probably needs more attention some time in order to avoid everything becoming "state-of-the-art" again. My hope, that the QM editor would go "ah yes, I understand now" and sort it out a bit themselves, has not yet been fulfilled ... best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) (state-of-the-art version) 09:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
POTUS protection
Re [6]: Respectfully, I'd strongly recommend extending the full protection to some point after the swearing-in. Some sleeper accounts have been activated already and the danger of vandalism right at the time of the swearing-in is virtually 100%. 78.34.164.53 (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The most important reason for extending is that precisely at 17:00 UTC, when the fullprot expires, the article is going to be entirely unprotected for at least a few moments, an chance I wouldn't take. 17:30 or 18:00 UTC would be perfect. 78.34.164.53 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pre-emptive protection on high profile articles is awkward. People can see the reason for protecting until Obama actually is President but once he's in the problem changes and will need to be seen first. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, let's hope I will have no reason to say I told you so. 78.34.164.53 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please unlock this article. --People's Alliance for Democracy (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- It will auto unlock at 12 noon Washington time. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
That went smoothly. Good call, I should add. 78.34.164.53 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
GPV
Hi! Tim. I see you have participated in formulating the policy on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). I would like to invite you to comment on this discussion about a party naming conflict: if google hits indicate that the acronym is used more often than a translation, should google hits be preferred even if the party itself and academic sources use a translation of the party name? C mon (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Doctor Who Lost and Found article.
Thank you very much for contacting me and for providing the information regarding my Lost and Found Episodes of Doctor Who article. I do not know whether or not you are in touch with Mr. Levine; but, when I started writing the "Doctor Who" article 16 years ago, I had no intention of ruffling any feathers. The article was intended to be nothing more than a research project. Some information in the article was submitted to me by lost episode hunters; and, some of those people were upset with individuals who were believed to have provided false leads regarding the existence of lost Doctor Who episodes. If Mr. Levine has any information which he wishes to provide, I would be more than happy to receive it and to incorporate his side of the story into my article. I also apologize for the delay in my reply to your message. Work has kept me preoccupied recently. 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Spider-Man
Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Assembly results, 2000
The reason the map is by Assembly constituency rather than borough is because the only data I could find was by constituency (from the BBC). I'm sure others will have the data. London would still, sadly remain a mass of purple.
Will see you at Silvertown when I get this wretched exam down.
C Uncantabrigian (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow politics or biography guidelines on Wikipedia so maybe you know - in the external links for Martin Winter is a link (http://www.sandrafordoncaster.org.uk) to a Labour Party news item on their candidate for Mayor of Doncaster. I think it should be removed, but have no idea whether that's right or not. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.