User talk:Barnabypage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Barnabypage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] homeopathy
Hi there and welcome to wikipedia. I apologise for overwriting your previous edits. The other contributions were too major for a manual revert. Feel free to join the discussion page and get stuck in. PhatRita 14:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
No problem at all. Barnabypage 16:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Crossword clues
Hi Barnaby,
I saw your changes to my sample cryptic clues at Crossword and think they are an improvement. Thanks for your contribution. --HappyDog 06:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Great - I'm sure someone else will be along soon to improve on them further! Barnabypage 14:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] thanks
Hello Barnaby. Thanks for tidying up my edits on the Suffolk article. As Dutch is my native tongue this is really helpful, Best Wishes, Antiphus 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problem - your English is much better than my Dutch! Barnabypage 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Summary
Hey Barnaby, well done on your edits so far, particularly in the 2006 Ipswich murder investigation article. However, could I ask you to add an edit summary to your modifications so that other editors can quickly and easily see what you've edited and why you've edited it? Cheers! Budgiekiller 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject PipeOrgan
Hi,
Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan has now been created. Feel free to assist in the creation of the project page, and then we can get started!
Best,
MDCollins (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits to Ipswich
Why do you keep removing the comment regarding the Unitarian Meeting House ? -- Ratarsed 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- The comment I removed read (in the context of the Willis Faber building): "ironically standing right next to one of the oldest extant buildings in Ipswich, the Unitarian Meeting House, which is also Grade I listed".
- I removed it because (a) there are many buildings in Ipswich older than the Unitarian Meeting House so it isn't "one of the oldest" in any very meaningful sense, and therefore (b) there's nothing particularly ironic about it either.
- Incidentally, your edit summary of your later edit referred to the Ancient House being older, so I thought you had restored the Unitarian Meeting House comment by accident. Barnabypage 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Edit summary was because I misread your as "Unitarian meeting house is (by) far
fromoldest bldg in Ipswich, also general clean-up". Anyways, perhaps ironic isn't the right word, maybe "juxtaposed" or similar would be better; however, your edit does remove a link to the article on the Unitarian Meeting House, which is why I intentionally reinstated the link. For the record there are approximately 300 older buildings that are listed in Ipswich (hard to say for sure, as the date ranges on Images of England go 15 years after the build date). -- Ratarsed 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)- Ah, I see. Yes, I agree the Meeting House (not to mention the Ancient House) does deserve a mention. Perhaps the article would benefit from an overview architecture section like the article for Norwich (among many others) has. I'd be happy to work on this with you - if you don't get around to adding it I'm sure I will sooner or later!
- Incidentally, the figure of 300 surprised me a bit, but I guess there's probably quite a lot of timber-frame lurking behind some later facades. Barnabypage 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never underestimate the number of Norman churches... Of course, I seem to remember that Ipswich was granted its town charter a little over 400 years ago, and as such, there are a lot of Tudor, Elizabethan and Jacobean buildings leading up to the Stuart period of the meeting house. I think that a section (or even a whole article) on the architecture of Ipswich could certainly be interesting right up to the present day (having the most modern Grade I listed building, as well as the more progressive designs used by the volume builders on Ravenswood. Not got the time at the moment to start it right now, but will certainly try and do something "soon". -- Ratarsed 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, exactly - it was the churches that first came to mind, and then I realised that given so much visible C15-17 timber-frame exists, there must be a lot more hidden. My personal architectural interests are inclined to the (late) C18 and later, but I'm sure we can get at least some temporary content up in the next week or two. A swift paraphrase of Pevsner, if nothing else. Barnabypage 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Created a really stubby fragment at User:Ratarsed/Architecture of Ipswich -- feel free to add to this -- Ratarsed 11:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've done a fair bit of research, and fleshed out User:Ratarsed/Architecture of Ipswich -- feel free to contribute to this; I'm not quite sure if it flows right, or if it's at risk of just turning into a history of Ipswich? -- Ratarsed 21:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Created a really stubby fragment at User:Ratarsed/Architecture of Ipswich -- feel free to add to this -- Ratarsed 11:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, exactly - it was the churches that first came to mind, and then I realised that given so much visible C15-17 timber-frame exists, there must be a lot more hidden. My personal architectural interests are inclined to the (late) C18 and later, but I'm sure we can get at least some temporary content up in the next week or two. A swift paraphrase of Pevsner, if nothing else. Barnabypage 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never underestimate the number of Norman churches... Of course, I seem to remember that Ipswich was granted its town charter a little over 400 years ago, and as such, there are a lot of Tudor, Elizabethan and Jacobean buildings leading up to the Stuart period of the meeting house. I think that a section (or even a whole article) on the architecture of Ipswich could certainly be interesting right up to the present day (having the most modern Grade I listed building, as well as the more progressive designs used by the volume builders on Ravenswood. Not got the time at the moment to start it right now, but will certainly try and do something "soon". -- Ratarsed 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Edit summary was because I misread your as "Unitarian meeting house is (by) far
[edit] Cix page
Just out of curiosity, are you cixen?
- Yes - barney2@cix. Don't use it a great deal these days, though. And you? Barnabypage 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Blog" Link
Before deleting links from me please read the discussion page of the article! -> UAE. Thanks larsdominic
[edit] Aside
Just wanted to say that I'd be more than happy to help out with Ipswich articles if you need anything. I've added a few photos to Portman Road and living not-too-far-away makes it easy for me to add to things, particularly image-wise. Let me know if there's anything I can help with. All the best. The Rambling Man 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly intruding a bit, but you could keep an eye on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Suffolk -- there's currently an outstanding request for the Unitarian Meeting House (next to the Willis building) -- Ratarsed 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blair Witch talk
It's protocol to place new comments under that which was posted earlier, to preserve continutity of conversation. I think that if you were addressing your comments specifically to Jussen, you could have done so on his talk page; any comments posted in Discussion can be addressed by anyone. Preserving a chronological order makes the discussion easier to navigate. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm...it's not the practice I've observed on many, many talk pages, where comments are nested, making the pattern of comment-comment much clearer than if they were purely chronological. It's like threading on BBSes (he says, hoping there's a Wiki article on threading). But anyway, let's not let that distract us from the question at hand re Blair Witch Project. And - thanks for getting in touch about it. Barnabypage 00:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that dupe posting is tedious but, as I had not watchlisted your page, I would have missed your comment. I have seen some of these pages where folk either forget or go crazy with the indents and where they post and whatnot. That can be extremely daunting (and a little intimidating) for the newer user, so a chronological order (or breakingup into specific sections) is not only easier to follow, but provides clear access for people to post new comments. Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually you wouldn't, because I took care to mention it on your own Talk page for precisely that reason. But IKWYM! Barnabypage 01:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that dupe posting is tedious but, as I had not watchlisted your page, I would have missed your comment. I have seen some of these pages where folk either forget or go crazy with the indents and where they post and whatnot. That can be extremely daunting (and a little intimidating) for the newer user, so a chronological order (or breakingup into specific sections) is not only easier to follow, but provides clear access for people to post new comments. Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Music of the UK
You may be interested in (and I hope may wish to participate in) Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom - do please take a look. --Smerus 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Help Needed - Grammar and Style Clean-up
Hi, I came across your user page, because of your user templates. You seem to be very interested in correct English grammar and in good style of writing. The article to affiliate marketing just failed the nomination as good article after a lot of work, because of style and grammar issues. I did a lot of the tweaking and cleaning, but English is my second language and my grammar and style are not flawless and certainly not enough to meet the standards of a good article. I tried to mobilize some editors at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics without success. I would really appreciate, if you might have a look at the article and could fix some of the grammar and style issues. The facts and references are already there, so you don't have to be knowledgeable about the subject of the article. Let me know, if you are interested to help. Thank you for your time and consideration. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Essex discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals
- Description
- A project for the county of Essex, England
- Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
- Chris 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Barnabypage (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
Maybe you could try Category:Wikipedians from Essex and also place notices e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject England. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Just wondering, who are you exactly?
IIRC there was a Barnaby Page working on CRASH (as "Lloyd Mangram" a lot of the time), and possibly on other Newsfield mags as well; are you he by any chance?
(I hope this question isn't an invasion of privacy; it's not intended to be.) 217.171.129.69 (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's me. (Though I wasn't actually Lloyd that often.) My email is firstname@fullname.com if you want to discuss. I suppose I should now ask who YOU are! Barnabypage (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pipe organ FA nomination
Hello… I think we're ready for another FA nomination at Pipe organ. I've just completed a pretty thorough copyedit… is there anything else you might want to change before we proceed? —Cor anglais 16 23:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stop Immediately.
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did at Talk:The Blair Witch Project, you will be blocked for disruption. -- Bongwarrior (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? I didn't vandalise the page - as the edit history shows. Barnabypage (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)