User talk:JRawle/Archive 2

Ken Pounds

Hi Jonathan, since someone added Ken Pounds to the Leicester page, I’ve created an article for him; I was wondering whether you could take a look and maybe add some more detail on what work he did regarding black holes, I’m a historian not a physicist so I really have no clue :-) but it seems like he carried out some important work?

I knew you were a PhD physicist from your website, I originally found your nice pictures of Leicester through google image search, sorry i didnt mean to make you feel uncomfortable just thought you may know a bit more then me : )

thanks Tomber

Lord Harries of Pentregarth

Thanks for checking on the online London Gazette. I don't know why many usually reliable sources, including The Times and The Daily Telegraph, announced him wrong! Thanks --Berks105 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Monkey Games

Any reason why you undid my vandalism rv? If you look at the "admin site" link -Paradox- added it's to a web site which contains an animated gif of gay sex. Hence my reverting your revert --Blowdart 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that... I was watching the "recent changes" and saw an IP vandal add obscenities to a URL. As it happened, the original URL itself was also bogus. I didn't see your revision, and the "popup" reversion tool didn't warn me another edit had been made in the meantime – I'll have to look out for that in future! JRawle (Talk) 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

John Major - Long Article

Hi, thanks for the comment on my accidental deletion of the end of the John Major article - sorry about that. I am using the Firefox browser (ver 1.5.0.4), where I find the tabbed feature very useful for holding reference information as I write. I have noticed this problem of truncation a few times recently, mainly when I have been previewing an article during composition. I'll have to make sure that I keep an eye on the bottom of the page before saving. --DavidCane 11:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Well policy at the moment is to use "Baroness" for both, and I'd be very much opposed to changing that policy. Wives of knights are different — whereas peeresses can have different titles and surnames, wives of knights are always "Lady Surname", and so "First Names Surname, Lady Surname" is always redundant. Lord Leicester is "Earl of Leicester, of Holkham in the County of Norfolk". This "Earl of Leicester of Holkham" business is just the Complete Peerage getting utterly confused about territorial designations, as usual. Proteus (Talk) 13:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no legal impediment to the same title being created dozens of times for different people; it's only convention that keeps titles unique. I suspect Mr Coke just said "Leicester or nothing" and got his own way. It's also possible they looked at the other Earl of Leicester, the 3rd Marquess Townshend, who was at that point 58 and childless, and whose only heir was 51 and also childless, and realised that in all likelihood the title would soon be extinct, and so the period of duplication would be minimal. Proteus (Talk) 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't want an earldom at all but was pressured to accept one for reasons relating to his son iirc. Alci12 17:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, "Lord" is an adjective. The Queen has various Lieutenants in Counties — some are plain Lieutenants (though that rank is now seldom used), some are Deputy Lieutenants, and the most important are Lord Lieutenants. (There's some confusion over whether hyphens are appropriate, but I'd be inclined to say "no", as we don't write "Lord-Chancellor", "Lord-Privy Seal", "Lord-Justice" etc.) The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland might be different — as it was a unique position, I'm not sure whether the holder was a Lord who was the Lieutenant of the King of Ireland or the Lieutenant of Ireland who was rather important (it evolved, of course, when there was a Lord of Ireland rather than a King of Ireland, so it's possible that "Lord Deputy of Ireland" and "Lord Lieutenant of Ireland" were (originally) effectively just "Deputy Lord of Ireland" with reversed word order). At any rate, the modern office is definitely pluralised on the "Lieutenant". Proteus (Talk) 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, same principle — they're Provosts, not Lords. Proteus (Talk) 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

With impressive ineptness the Department for Constitutional Affairs manages to give the link to their page as Lords Lieutenant and the page itself as Lord Lieutenants Alci12 09:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Runyang Bridge

I wasn't reverting your change to the article, but an anons a few edits back. (S)he had removed the line about China saying that if it was the largest in the world, it obviously was the largest in China. Also it is traditional to call the suspension bridges with the longest span the "largest" bridge and not the "longest". I would not have a problem with changing "largest suspension bridge" to "suspension bridge with longest main-span" but it should not be changed to "longest suspension bridge". -- Samuel Wantman 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lord's introduction

Ho, some days ago I've seen a discussion over the territorial designation of the Baron Bragg, so I searched for it and found the minutes. I corrected it to the right form and added the link as source. After this I thought that it could be a good idea to do the same to other articles of life peers to avoid similar cases. I know that many of the hereditary peers had been sitting in the House of Lords, before they were created life peers ; it is often noticed in the articles of them. My phrase of their introduction was refered to the fact that their new titles were announced, not to the fact, that they were new in the House of Lords. Since this was obviously missleading, I will change it (perhaps the reason is that I was thinking in German :-) ) Would be "Announcement of his/her new title at the House of Lords" acceptable? I capitalised the p in life peer, because I had seen the same in many articles, so I thought it was common use. Greetings ... by the way I'm smelting, it's too hot. Phoe 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The minutes on web start at 1998 and because I've read it all till Tuesday this week, I had noticed the different processes. However thanks for your explanation. I will use your suggestion and change the links I've added to hereditary peers. Hm yeah German is very easy :-) I hope always my English Grammar isn't too bad Phoe 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Curzon Street.

Aww, that was a shame. I thought it was 06. I obviously didn't read it properly. At least the area around it is going to be developed. - Erebus555 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats me. Do you have a username on SSC? - Erebus555 11:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Um. Well, I'm sure you're not FLD cus you havent editted the Arena Central article. Do you post on the Birmingham forums? - Erebus555 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah I remember now. You dont post much on the Brum forum so thats one reason why I didn't catch your username. I spend most of my SSC time on the Birmingham forum. Well, good to bump into you on here! Keep in touch sometime. - Erebus555 16:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony Benn

Thanks for adding that source about the Queen's image on stamps! Nice to see someone providing a reference on request! 86.136.0.145 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your reminding! ~;-) 百家姓之四 (Lee) 討論 (Discussion) 2006年08月3日12:35 (UTC) 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Balniel

Sorry! You're right. I have replied on my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

... also needed for "Commercial ventures" (eg Chairman Arsenal Football Club) etc - Kittybrewster 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Would {{S-other}}, which I created, be any help here? --BrownHairedGirl 12:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've copied these discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization JRawle (Talk) 12:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Precedence

We decided a while ago that they weren't really appropriate and should be removed, so just deleting them would seem to be the best idea. Proteus (Talk) 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alec Douglas-Home

Hi. Just wondering why you removed the Life title from the list of succession boxes? Yes I know there is no actual succession but the boxes are a usefull way to display all titles and offices for major figures and we've been using them for a while this way. Thanks Galloglass 13:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Kitchener

I suspect it's because there's confusion even in official sources as to what the titles are, probably because he was well known as "Kitchener of Khartoum", and so when people (including Gazette editors) see a title "Baron Kitchener, of Khartoum and of Aspall..." they would have a tendency to make the title the same as his nickname. This would make his territorial designation begin with "and", though, which is just impossible (well, it would be a unique occurrence, at any rate). As you can see, even Cracroft's is (in an extremely rare instance) confused about this — it knows that the designation can't begin with "and", but doesn't want to leave out "of Khartoum", so it includes both bits after the comma in the actual title, but "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome" is just ridiculous (and, again, would be unique — well, I certainly can't think of any other "X of Y and of Z" titles [and, of course, if they wanted to make one they'd no doubt use "X of Y and Z"]). Proteus (Talk) 11:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament

See reply on my talk. --BrownHairedGirl 14:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kitchener

"I looked at the websites to check the date of the Viscountcy, but I found Leigh Rayment says: "Created Baron Kitchener... Viscount Kitchener... Baron Denton, Viscount Brome and Earl Kitchener of Khartoum 27 Jul 1914". And Cracroft's says, "Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome (3rd), Henry Herbert Kitchener". Both sites suggest the Earldom has a placename in the title, but I don't see why it should have, and I know it doesn't as you've edited the page before. So why are they wrong?"

• Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome in the County of Kent
• Viscount Broome of Broome in the County of Kent
• Baron Denton of Denton in the County of Kent
• Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum and of the Vaal in the Colony of Transvaal, and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk
• Baron Kitchener of Khartoum and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk

My source lists it like that. The London Gazette copy of the LP for the viscountcy certainly confirms the barony title format "The KING has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,granting the dignity of a Viscount of the said United Kingdom unto Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum". I think we do have an error in our entry. If the latter two are both correct then the similarity to the earldom's patent would be the source of the confusion elsewhere Alci12 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The LP for the viscountcy is:

"The KING has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, granting the dignity of a Viscount of the said United Kingdom unto Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Member of the Order of Merit, General in the Army, lately Commander-m-Ohief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa, by the name, style, and title of Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum, and of the Vaal in the Colony of the Transvaal, and of Aspall in the county of Suffolk, with remainder to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, and in default of such issue with remainder to the first daughter of the said Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Viscountess Kitchener of Khartoum, and of the Vaal in the Colony of the Transvaal, and of Aspall in the county of Suffolk, and after her decease with remainder to the heirs male of her body, lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum, and of the Vaal in the Colony of the Transvaal, and of Aspall in the county of Suffolk, and in default of such issue with remainder to the.second, third, fourth, and every other daughter of the said Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, lawfully begotten, and the heirs male of the body and respective bodies of such daughters severally, and successively one after another as they shall be in seniority of age and priority of birth, and in default of such issue with' remainder to Henry Elliott Chevallier Kitchener, Esquire, Colonel in the Army, brother of the said Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, with remainder to the heirs male of his body,lawfully begotten, and in default of such issue with remainder to Frederick Walter Kitchener, Esquire, Major-General in the Army, another brother of the aforesaid Horatio Herbert,Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, with remainder to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten." Alci12 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's confusion on the part of the LG (and they merely state that the Letters Patent have been created and summarise their contents, they don't quote them). It'd be no more possible for the Barony and Viscountcy to be "A of B, and of C (and of D)" than it would for the Earldom. (And, of course, it'd be pretty silly for the different ranks to be different titles.) Proteus (Talk) 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and assuming you're using David Beamish as a source, he's not infallible. He sometimes makes the same mistake elsewhere, e.g. Viscount Allenby (of Megiddo), Baron Stewart (of Stewart's Court), Viscount French (of Ypres). Proteus (Talk) 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As titles have been created without the territorials before and with spelling mistakes or inconsistant with previous titles I certainly don't regard such an error in this case as impossible. Alci12 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

File:Wikiballoon1.png

Happy first edit anniversary, JRawle. :) It's been a pleasure working with you the past year, and indeed, here's to another! Cheers, Sango123 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

CFD for MPs by Parliament

see CFD for category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament and subcategories. Your comments would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Honours System

Seeing that you've just edited this one how do you feel about removing this entirely

"KBEs are often awarded as honourary knighthoods, but are occasionally awarded to British citizens. Creator of the world wide web Sir Tim Berners-Lee was awarded a KBE presumably because, as an American resident, his title would not be used in everyday life, so he may instead append "KBE" to his name. Actor Sir Alec Guinness received a KBE on recommendation of the Foreign Office, according to his memoirs, for quelling anti-British sentiments at an Argentinian film festival by making a witty speech in Spanish, having learned it by rote following the British"

It's misleading at best - the vast majority of all KBEs are awarded to British/Commonwealth citizens the rare exceptions are honourary awards. The selection of the order of knighthood is simply a matter of the persons distinction and the committee for that specific order selecting that individual according to their criteria. ie a diplomat will be KCMG not KCB and a general the reverse. Tim BL simply fell under the BE Cmtee it has nothing to do with his residential status Alci12 14:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good question and the answer is not exactly obvious at least for the KBE. The original statues for the order were designed to fill those areas not covered by the KG/KT/KP for national distinction and military/governmental KCB, diplomatic KCMG or royal KCVO. The terms were therefore 'military or civil distinction in any field'. Before it existed though there was the knight bachelor that didn't help with women or for higher (now GBE) or lower CBE/OBE/MBE. As each order has a committee that decides on recommendations I suspect it is ultimately arbitrary as to whether you get a kbatchelor or KBE. Certain jobs get an automatic kbatchelor others it appears to depend on which committee gets in first! As to Coe - most of the other leading sports offciails had the same so it was perhaps rather a 'with the rations' award. As to the diplomatic list that's just about where people did what they did. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2615763.stm for a Kbatch on that list Alci12 15:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Although the Order of the British Empire has by far the highest number of members of the British Orders of Chivalry, there are fewer appointments to knighthoods than in other orders. Most Knights Commander are honorary members or British subjects living abroad, with only a handful being residents of the United Kingdom." It does though I can't quite decide how. It actually reads closer to the truth than might have been the case as the next line qualifies the above with the remarks about DBEs. SO while it's true that a KBE is far more likely to be hon. than a DBE I still think the use of 'most' is wrong but I'm wondering how one could possibly prove it! Obviously if you look through the ranks of many top soldiers and the like you see the KBE as you do with people like Lord Coe. But there is no central list that I can find to cite Alci12 23:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Paternoster

The edit is not a joke, but an explanation of the origin of the name. Your use of the "behave" template is unnecessarily provocative. --StanZegel (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Baronets

Please visit WikiProject Baronetcies - Baronetcy project 10:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Baron_Moynihan

I think you've erred slightly here but I don't have all the details on this claim to hand to launch into an edit but will bother proteus and see if he does. Essentially I don't think you can 'terminate' a dormancy. The 4th baron sought and obtained a writ of summons having successfully made out his claim to the Committee for Privileges. The title may be described as 'dormant' but thats not a legal matter; as a matter of law the 4th baron was the 4th baron from the moment of the 3rd barons death, it was only that he settled the claim on 20th March '97. Interestingly of course that means he sat as an MP from '91-92 when he was infact a peer and it was careless by all concerned that he wasn't forced to disclaim any rights to that title or resign his seat - the choice James_Douglas-Hamilton was forced to make under the not that different circumstances in '94. Alci12 16:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly terminate an abeyance, the title is legally held by no one but has co-heirs who the sovereign (the CFP) decide between by calling the title out in favour of one claimant. I'm not sure there is any correct phrase for dormant titles, they are held by whomsoever the LP rules say - seeking a writ is the means by which people tend to prove their right but historically and even today many peers have never sought a writ but were/are unquestionably the holder of the title in law and were recognised officially by the state as such. I suppose it comes down to how you define dormant (i) any title whose holder hasn't made out a claim or the more strict and for mine correct that (i) there is assumed to be an heir if only he could be found and his claim made. I'd call the above peerage unclaimed/unproven or disputed rather than dormant as it was a simply dispute between known claimants for a fairly obvious outcome. Alci12 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Lord Curzon

Hey Jrawle, thanks for your notice. For me it looks normally better if labels with the same text are grouped, but actually it does not play a large role. In cases with so many different (or/and particularly important) peerages two headers can be usefull, you're right. Greetings Phoe 12:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Succession

"Isn't it possible for the succession to a peerage and baronetcy to be different, if they have different remainders, etc?"

Certainly though not usually. Other than peerages by writ and some scottish titles almost everything decends to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. So provided you don't go back before the creation of one title but after the creation of the other the proof for succession of a peerage and baronetcy would generally be the same. Alci12 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Respect privacy

Perhaps you might want to consider this proposed policy: Wikipedia:Respect privacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.195.254 (talk • contribs) 22:26, September 10, 2006 (UTC)

I should note, as the author of the above, that the proposal is intended to cover personal information not in the public domain. Whereas Wikipedia:Persondata is supposed to be used with publicly known information on important figures, rather than to promote crazy stalking actions by wikipedians for research (that's be original research, anyhow). If you think any clarifications need making to the proposal, speak up. LinaMishima 22:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't choose you at all, some other IP user, listed above, decided to link to the policy. I added the clarification note, as I suspected they were somehow attempting to complain about the addition of Persondata, and I did not want to be seen as trying to fight against a valuable idea. Feel free to ignore all this :) LinaMishima 01:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, when you said "author of the above", I thought you meant the comment (and that you forgot to log in or something). Well, it was late at night!

I know I left a note for someone who removed persondata from Ian McDiarmid, but as the other editor said, all the persondata information was already in the article anyway. I just pointed out that the persondata is intended to duplicate information as it's for a different purpose. User:B cubed has now added the persondata back anyway. JRawle (Talk) 11:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what 81.129.195.254 (talk • contribs) is referring to. Therefore I'm going to WP:AGF and assume it was left on my talk page by mistake. JRawle (Talk) 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the mystery is solved. Check out the following: [1]. Note the time stamp, and that of the comment above. Thanks User:AJD. You could have sent a polite private message to let me know you prefer your real name not to be used on Wikipedia, rather than leaving an anonymous note. Anyway, that information is already easily accessible on Wikipedia. [2] [3] JRawle (Talk) 17:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

British Humanist Association

Hi there J - have added a link on the BHA page in order to elucidate those who want to know more about 'Distinguished Supporters' and what it entails. Hope that helps! BHA 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Cheers for the further pointers re. the linking with names etc - I did that with some but I must have overlooked a number of them. I'll get on to it in a bit, I'm just a bit rushed under, but your sage recommendations will be enforced soon :-D

Btw, thanks a bunch for fixing the broken links!

G

BHA 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Just looked at the history of changes - I didn't realise that you'd done quite so much in the way of improving the wiki! An even bigger thank you for your help than before :-P

Fleur Lombard

Thanks for taking the time to add to her article. --Steve 00:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

R.H. Bruce Lockhart

See Talk:R. H. Bruce Lockhart Xn4 10:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrectly edited: David Blunkett

On the 5th of august you changed the Blunkett page, to "he became" in to "rose to became". This should obviously be "rose to become". If you have info to add, great, if you have a mistake that needs to be corrected, great, but please try not to edit pages with excellent wording and turn them into grammatically incorrect versions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.48.173 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I did make that slight mistake during an editing session in which I made many other improvements to the article. The incorrect grammar was an oversight. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. JRawle (Talk) 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rees portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rees portrait.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also Image:Lord carlile of berriew.jpg, Image:Baroness Hayman.jpg, Image:Viscount Falkland 15th.jpg, and Image:Joan Walmsley.jpg. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PC

[4] - Kittybrewster 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Template talk:S-nob

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template talk:S-nob, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template talk:S-nob is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template talk:S-nob, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Albright & Wilson

Hi & thanks for your note about Albright & Wilson. I worked at their Langley Green site until about June 1973 (and I worked there for a short period in the summer of 1974), so I knew the site quite well. I remember the Hagley Road West/Wolverhampton Road site before the office was built & afterwards. I believe the site was originally a cinema that had become a bingo hall, or bowling alley. For a long time afterwards it was known as the "Warley Bowl", and it was still common to ask for & get a bus ticket to "Warley Bowl" long after it became A&W's offices. There was quite a cultural shock for the technical staff to move from Trinity Street to Hagley Road West. So on that basis, I tend to look on it as an Oldbury-Warley move; but I take your point about the 1970s boundary changes. You are also quite right in that the (former) Oldbury Division did not change all that much as a result of the Tennaco take over. However, the Marchon, ACC & BBA divisions that I remember (in name only) were all disposed off. Pyrotec 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lord Winston.jpg replaceable

Hello. I've tagged Image:Lord Winston.jpg for deletion because it's been cropped from a book cover to illustrate what a living person looks like. Brad 13:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tonybanks seal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tonybanks seal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Radio 4 UK Theme cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Radio 4 UK Theme cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ken Pounds

There was nothing worth reverting to prior to the copying. Sorry. Refdoc (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed this again and accept your explanation - particularly also wrt the images. I wholeheartedly apologise for the asumption of bad faith. I am not used to governmental media ripping off Wikipedia. Sorry. Refdoc (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages did not contain much, but are undeleted nevertheless. Thanks for your gracious words. I am also now for a long time not very active anymore and every so often get an attack of bad conscience dt low admin contribution. I then revert some vandalism, delete a vanity page or two and chase up some copyvios. Usually I take up odd, somehow slightly unencyclopaedic, more "artistic" formulations (like in your article "including the rare distinction of an honorary degree from his own institution") and put them into google. More often then not a weird PDF report, a website or something else turns up which matches more or less completely. Obviously, as just now seen the conclusions of this are not always the obvious ones... :-( Refdoc (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is right. I think though there was a previous undated page, now vanished, on Leicester Uni website where the formulation appeared too, but this is now a haze. Refdoc (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The restoration of this article popped up on my watchlist. I've just read the talk page and deletion review discussions, and I'd like to say how civilised it all turned out to be in the end (despite a few awkward moments), once all the misunderstandings were cleared up and sincere apologies made and accepted. It is heartening to see this sort of thing end amicably (sorry if this comes across as overdone, but I was getting cynical after seeing the opposite behaviour elsewhere). Why was it on my watchlist? Well, from your comment at User talk:Refdoc: "as a result, they have the wrong date for his Royal Astronomical Society presidency, which was corrected later on Wikipedia" - I was the editor that corrected that! :-) Pity I wasn't alert enough to see the article disappearing! :-( Oh well, all's well that ends well (always wanted to link that). Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, deletions and restorations do now show up in watchlists - that's what happens when you look away for a few months or years! :-) I noticed because the restoration popped up on the watchlist. The deletion took place before the changes to the watchlist functionality. It can take a while to catch up with changes around here sometimes. Did you know every is now forced to edit with their left hand only on pain of being blocked on odd-numbered days? <kidding!> :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tang Zhongming

Thanks your question and intervention in this article.The car is powered by charcoal,but unfortunately I cann't find more infos,and essentially,the car seems to be one upgrade version of Étienne Lenoir's coal gas engine equipped car.I will try to find some english pages.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: 'abusive' edit summaries

I'm not sure how that edit summary could possibly be considered abusive. The sentence in question did read like it was written by a twelve year and pointing that out is just a statement of fact, not abuse. I mean what else was I supposed to write? "Removed pefectly acceptable sentence for no reason"? I removed it because it read teribly so I said that. Whatever else you might think, Wiki pages are supposed to be well-written as well as factually correct and that kind of nonsense has no place here so I removed it.

Your 'intervention' comes across as nothing else but pompous and arrogant so the absolutely only thing you've achieved is to make me annoyed at you for no good reason. Surely there's a more consructive use of your time here than trying to pointlessly police edit summaries?78.86.215.204 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary was Removed pointless sentence that made article sound like it was written by a 12 year old. That's totally unnecessary. All you need to say was "Removed sentence" or "Removed unnecessary sentence" or "Reword sentence". Wikipedia is editied by people from all over the world for whom English may not be their first language. You can help by correcting what they've written; you don't need to insult them at the same time. I didn't look into this case in detail, but there's a chance the user who wrote that sentence could see the edit history and be offended. It's also insulting to 12-year-olds! Please read WP:CIVIL ("Judgmental tone in edit summaries").

Incidentally, the warning above is a standard WP warning template, Template:Edit summary personal.

Finally, why not create an account rather than edit under an IP? Your edits will be more closely scrutinised as an IP user when they appear in the recent changes log. JRawle (Talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone is editing the English version of Wikipedia without the English language skills to make decent sounding edits then quite frankly they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You wouldn't find me poking around on the French site because I'm well aware that I've no right being there so I'm not massively sympathetic. Wikipedia is hardly the place to practise your writing! And lol at my insulting twelve year olds. Twelve year olds aren't great writers because, y'know, they're twelve! Which is fine of course, there's no reason twelve year olds should be knocking out best sellers or anything, but getting offended by someone pointing this out is pointless.

As for my editing under an IP, to be honest I just don't edit enough to make it worth my while setting up an account. I've only done a handful of edits and all are very minor and only done when I happen to be reading a page and notice an error or whatever. Also, either my edits are 'good' enough to pass scrutiny or they're not so doing something that would mean people paying less attention to the changes I've made isn't really something I'm bothered about. Indeed, a possible implication of your comment is that setting up an account is somehow a way to sort of 'hide' edits from scrutiny which seems like a weird argument against someone doing anonymous edits. I should point out here that I know an such implication is completely unintentional on your part, it just seems like a bit of a strange thing to say y'know?78.86.215.204 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Janaya64

Thanks for note, yes, I spotted it was supposed to be wrong as soon as I'd clicked save. OTOH Taking it to AfD seems to be overkill. No electrons were killed in this particular edit war! --Richhoncho (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Wight

I saw it on this QI episode last night - apparently it was only discovered by the researchers working for the programme. I can't find many references (especially "reliable" ones), but there is this discussion on the QI forum, or this . пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord Cranborne

I believe he was still simply "Viscount Cranborne" (or "The Viscount Cranborne", depending on how you feel about the definite article and courtesy peers). The "Right Honourable" held by peers is, as far as I can see, a bit like that held by Lord Mayors, i.e. attached to their peerage and not just a style they can always use. If John Smith, 10th Baron Somewhere, decides he doesn't want to use his peerage, for instance, he can't call himself "The Rt Hon. John Smith", despite the fact that he'd undoubtedly be "The Rt Hon. The Lord Somewhere" if he did use his title. A similar principle would presumably apply to Lord Cranborne. Proteus (Talk) 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ascension / accession

I think the two words mean about the same, but if accession is typical for such things, by I hope you'll feel free to change it back. I was more disturbed by the edit summary than the change itself. --Coemgenus 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

fracas

JR, I'm sorry all of that happened on my talk page. Malleus's tumultuous reactions came as a total suprise to me, as I'm sure they did to you. I've left a longish response to your post at my talk page. I would like to persuade you that generally dropping the auto-formatting system, unless there's a good reason to use it, is the best way to go for the whole project. I accept that there's a good chance you won't be persuaded, but it's worth a try: others have switched from fervent opposition to support over the past month or two. Maybe the notes I've written on my talk page under the grey caps present the case reasonably well, including the examples of "before" and "after". It might seem counterintuitive, but one motivation for the change is to strengthen the wikilinking system.

I see that we have a love of classical music in common. Good start. Tony (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed! You probably noticed that the move has been afoot at MOSNUM talk for a while. Tony (talk)

I just want to say that I'm sorry I used the question you raised with Tony about date autoformatting as an opportunity to show off how clever I think I am. Sometimes I'm not clever at all, and this was one of those times. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

James Earl Jones

Hello JRawle. Thanks for you note. I did not look at the edit history for Mr Jones page before I left my edit summary note. The page had just come off of semiprotection not just gone on it. It was immeadiately hit with two vandalising edits and, based on my misconception, I thought that something must be wrong. If these continue I will, of course, request protection again. Thanks again for taking the time to leave me a note and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hereford Cathedral School

Hey, yeah I didn't mean to do that (hence the undoing of my own undoing!). His name is indeed Paul Smith - the vole thing is an inside joke among some of the sixth form at the school.Charlski (talk)

Rollback?

I saw your edit at WP:RFPP. I fulfilled your request, and after quick scan through your contribs, I noticed you've been doing a bit of anti-vandal work, and I think you'd be interested in the rollback feature. If you want me give it you, just tell me and I'll immediately do so. Cheers! Maxim (☎) 13:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Maxim (☎) 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

fr:Histoire du terme Wallon

Hello, I am the author of that page. This is a featured article about the lexical history of the term Walloon and its derived words such as Wallonia. You seem to understand french, so you should be able to read it a little. "Featured article" label is much more strict on fr.wikipedia than on en.wikipedia . On the other hand, you have Stephane.dohet who has been banned on two wikipedia for just trolling around and send propagandist mail (not email, mail) to other contributors after doing investigation on their identity and their location. Speculoos (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wallonia, it would be a little more clear to you perhaps. I did some improvements and some clarifications Speculoos (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)