User talk:Wimstead/archives

"Fictional [fictional/legendary creature]s" categories

Just to let you know I've responded to your observation at and re the above; thanks for including it. Best wishes, David Kernow 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the usage of sub-categories of Category:Biota by country

I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of <region>/Fauna of <region>/Biora of <region> caregories. I noticed you are interested in this issue from the deletion log.

Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD: Subcategories of Earls in the Peerage of England

I'm not sure that it makes a difference, but I think you meant to specify Merge or Merge all rather than Delete. Thank you again for your detailed explanation of the issue; I certainly learned something in the process. --Bill Clark 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Rapid transit (systems)" category rename

Hi Wimstead,

You have suggested renaming Category:Subways to Category:Rapid transit systems, but...

Thanks for the alert. I'll be passing by this CfD again anon and will review. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rapid transit

You have suggested renaming Category:Subways to Category:Rapid transit systems, but it only covers a specific class of rapid transit system and is already a subcategory of Category:Rapid transit. Wimstead 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did some research and responded there. - jc37 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flicr

Just a heads up, I got a warning for linking to flicr pictures sets. Basically, the argument goes, if it can't be posted copyright free here, Wiki aren't interested. Best wishes. Kbthompson 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with linking to Flickr, which is the best source of images for places on the net. It is particularly good for houses, as I find that it is rare to come across a "professional" site that gives a full set of images from all angles. There are hundreds of thousands of links in Wikipedia to pages that contain copyrighted images. The person who "warned" you needs some instruction on copyright law and common sense. Wimstead 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they do, but they quoted one of those wiki policies that are made by a straw poll between 5 men, and the dog. I'm still trying to get formal permission from the NT to post interior pix of Sutton House and Osterley here. In theory, it is another thing that is forbidden! I myself, lean towards agreeing with you. Kbthompson 11:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the distinction, you are trying to get permission to post copyrighted pictures in this site, which requires permission from the copyright holder. The Flickr links are to photos hosted on an external site. Every major media company links to external sites that contain copyrighted photos; such links are not a breach of copyright. The only grounds I can see for an objection to links to Flickr is that there are some Wikipedians who take a fundamentalist line against any connection with any commercial entity, but they are in a small minority and can be safely ignored as Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of links to commercial sites, which are often the best links available on a topic. Even then, as commercially owned sites go, Flickr is about as uncommercial in appearance as they come. Wimstead 13:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You showcase yourself to be ignorant

in terms of musical history by your insistence that the Peel Sessions artist classification is not important. It is important, and the category needed to stay, and I am very angry that you took it upon yourself to foist your lack of knowledge about the topic at hand via your vote to delete the category. The category was necessary and valid and needed to stay on Wikipedia for the site to be full in scope. Peel Sessions artists were by and large artists who were marked by a sense of innovation and musical experimentation, and the fact that you discounted that in favor of your chosen ignorance of the subject matter means that your vote, as well as the vote of the other individuals who chose to vote for deletion, was and is tainted. (Krushsister 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Chew Stoke FAC

Hi, I've recently put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. As you have edited this article in the past I wondered if you would like to make any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke?— Rod ^talk 07:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abney Hall

I will be moving the article on my test page once I have finished it. —PolishName 18:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Pls see response at CFD for Eagle Scouts.Rlevse 01:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runestone categories

Dear Wimstead, another editor has averted me of your and Carlossuarez46's category changes and voting, and I want to talk to you about it because the changes have led to a certain mess. Scholars don't categorize runestones according to modern country borders, but according to those that Sweden and Denmark had historically. All the runestones in Denmark, Blekinge, Scania and Halland are categorized as DR, e.g. "DR 360" which means literally the "360th catalogued runestone of Denmark. However, this runestone is located in south-eastern Sweden, in a region that only historically belonged to Denmark. In the same manner, there are several Denmark runestones in Schleswig-Holstein which today belong to Germany. An easy way of avoiding conficting views of what constitute "a runestone in Denmark" or a "runestone in Sweden" is to simply divide Denmark into a Jutland category, a Danish isles category and a Skåneland category, where the Jutland category is categorized both as Danish and German and the Skåneland category is both Swedish and Danish. Moreoever, a name such as "Runestones, Denmark" has the advantage of not pretending that a "Denmark runestone" needs to be in Denmark, but only makes a connection between the two. If you insist on keeping the system you created, you need to present a solution for making the runestones of Scania, Halland and Blekinge both Danish and Swedish and the runestones of Schleswig-Holstein both German and Danish. I wait a few days for you and Carlossuarez46 to propose a working solution. If you don't, I will have to see if your changes can be undone. Regards,--Berig 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wine

Hello, maybe you may be interested by this talk : Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Wine and Wines because you created Category:French wine. --Sisyph (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterstones - Piccadilly

Hi,

Just been reviewing the article as I feel that it might be a good idea to put it up for Good article status, however, just looking back through the discussion page shows me that you took the information about the Piccadilly store and it's reputation as the "largest bookstore in Europe" out. Your justification for removing it by comparing it to the Foyles claim is believable as I myself have visited Foyles and Waterstone's Piccaddilly and they are both very big, but just doing a quick internet search brings up Piccadilly over and over again as the biggest store. I was wondering if you would complain massively if I put the claim back in with a reference or two, as it seems that it would fit into the article nicely and just adds polish to the article.

I'll wait for a response before I go and add this back in - thanks. RandomArticles 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't been around. Yes, I would object, because as you say yourself, the claim almost certainly isn't true. It is not unusual for things that aren't true to be repeated in the media many times. I suspect that what happened is that the claim was made in a press release, which in the nature of press releases probably didn't provide any credible backup for said claim. A few journalists would have picked it up because it was the most striking thing in the press release. It then gained momentum, as other journalists repeated it without even thinking that they needed to check it because it has already been featured in so many other "reputable" publications. Wikipedia should not fall into the same trap. The only credible source for the claim would be one that actually gave a statistic basis of comparison, and stated who prepared the statistics. It is very unlikely that any such source exists, because as we both believe from personal observation, the claim simply isn't true. Wimstead (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso museums

I see that way back—like three years ago—you marked Picasso museums as a disambiguation page. Wouldn't it make more sense to handle it as a list page? Usually a disambiguation page should have no incoming links, but there are good reasons to link to this; see for example my recent lede for Museo Picasso Málaga. - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Kaya Scodelario. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. magnius (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change anything controversial, so I have no idea what you are getting at. Please do not make false allegations against other users making responsible edits. Wimstead (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely restating widely known information that was previously deleted - something that was borderline vandalism. You find a source that meets your arbitrary criteria if it matters so much to you. I am more interested in truth than in academic procedure (which is often used to misrepresent the truth). Wimstead (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Kaya Scodelario. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. magnius (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]