User talk:Hadrianheugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not write the Westvleteren article that you fact tagged, but it is on my watchlist. Did you read past the first paragraph? Please take another look at the entire article and see whether you still think the fact tag is justified. Thanks. Mikebe 08:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Even thought the citation should occur in the intro, I have removed the call for citation in the intro. The article is still undersourced, but so are most articles in wikipedia. shalom. Hadrianheugh 14:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. As I said, I did not write the article, but I do agree with you that many articles are under-sourced. I am doing my best to improve that, but I am only one person. Mikebe 14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] summits

Hallo, If you're going to add a link for summit as on Gragareth, could you please make it [[summit (topography)|]] (note the closing "|", it's a short cut for [[summit (topography)|summit]]) so it works like this one: summit, rather than just pointing to the general disambiguation page? Thanks. PamD 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed and thanks for the message Pam. Hadrianheugh 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red-footed Plumeleteer

I removed your onesource tag from this article since you did not indicate on the talk page why Stiles and Skutch is inadequate for this species, nor suggest a better source. If you chose to retag, please identify a better source. Jimfbleak 05:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I commented on a recent edit of yours.

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mill of Ayreland

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mill of Ayreland, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Burn of Ayreland. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello bot. This is a separate topic and merits its own page. Two of the references and some of the history do overlap from the other article. Hadrianheugh 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings (Kincardine & Mearns, et al)

Hiya there! Just spotted your latest updates in addition to your previous additions. Thanks! I think we need a *lot* of help to get Aberdeenshire into shape.
(aside: Hopefully that new two-level navigation for areas within the 'Shire will have helped pull things together a *bit* - feedback welcome!).
Cheers, David. Harami2000 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work on Kincardine and Mearns. I hope you won't disapprove that I converted your references that you added to use citation templates. Please revert if not. - Neparis 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your editing is much neater than mine. thanks Hadrianheugh 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like it. I thought I'd better ask because citation formats are sometimes a source of wiki debate; I like using inline since it is more concise than Harvard style, and easier to use consistently when citing the same reference in more than one place in a text. - Neparis 10:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Scottish Islands project

I notice that you have been editing a diverse assortment of articles, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look.

Great work on the articles in north east Scotland by the way. --MacRusgail 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over-linking

The Manual of Style says:

“ Make links only where they are relevant to the context. It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see: ...)". Hence, the links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read. ”

Consequently links to common words such as 'village', 'coast' and 'ruin' are discouraged and, as you will have seen, are removed as being contrary to the above. As you have reverted my last delinking I guess you are not aware of the above and so am, in a helpful spirit, bringing it to your notice. Best Wishes Saga City (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France)

I noticed your edit here. Please note that Cliche Online has been blocked for 24 hours for disruption, edit warring, and incivility regarding the article 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France) (and its talk page). My advice is to please discuss the article at its talk page without edit warring any further. This advice extends to both you and the editors with an opposing point of view. However, I have one more piece of advice, which is only meant for you and Cliche Online: do not refer to your opponents in a content dispute "vandals" or refer to their edits as "vandalism". Discuss the article on its talk page, please. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Cliche Online chose to ignore this advice, and was thus blocked. I implore you to not make the same mistake. Thanks. · jersyko talk 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Possessed (comics)

Hi, I noticed you placed a wikify section tag on the Characters section of this article. I've looked at other articles that have not been given this tag in their characters sections and have looked at the links inside the tag, I can't see what needs to be done. Could you explain to me exactly what you are expecting to be done when you placed the tag there. Stephen Day (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stephen. I did the wikification myself just now, since that was easier than writing guidelines as to how to do same. Thanks for your interest in working together to improve Wikipedia. By the say the most important link was to spirit possession. Hadrianheugh (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gurness

Hi, could you please explain to me why the article about the Broch of Gurness should be under Gurness, instead of the full name? Without being an expert, I think the full name is better (more descriptive, immediately clear to readers). -- Pepve (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this page. The archaeological literature typically uses "Gurness", but the terms are certainly interchangable. I would favour leaving the name as it is. Hadrianheugh (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for considering. -- Pepve (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, doesn't the archaeological literature tend towards Broch of Aikerness, the likely root of the modern name? I know names are used, but I was under the impression that was the archaeologically preffered name. Lianachan (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You can certainly find it both ways, but I have just done an academic search and found "Gurness" occurring 89 times where Aikerness occurs 17 times; also the Aikerness use seems to have been prevalent mostly in the 1930s era as opposed to current time Note the following more academic type works, all of which use "Gurness" as opposed to "Broch of anything":
  • Anna Ritchie, Prehistoric Orkney, 1995, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 128 pages ISBN 0713475935
  • Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales, 2005, Routledge, 741 pages
ISBN 0415347793
  • Ian Armit, Beyond the Brochs: Changing Perspectives on the Later Iron Age, 1990, Edinburgh University Press, 228 pages
ISBN 074860197X
Many travel and popular texts also use "Gurness". Cheers. Hadrianheugh (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - you seem to be using the terms broch and promontory fort almost interchangeably. It is best to avoid using the latter term when discussing brochs, as it is a distinct archaeological term in its own right. Many, although by no means all, promotory forts within the "broch region" are duns, which are very like a small broch. Lianachan (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this topic. I am not aware of using the terms interchangeably. Each term clearly has its own meaning. I think it would be a mistake not to point out which brochs are also promontory forts. Regards. Hadrianheugh (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Balbridie

I have nominated Balbridie, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balbridie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. скоморохъ ѧ 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a second look at this page, which is clearly quite notable. I appreciate your withdrawing the nomination swiftly and noting that all other comments suggested a Keep. cheers. Hadrianheugh (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kennestone Hospital

If you clik on the hospitals website in external links... you can see that it way's it's part of the Wellstar network. It may not be an inline citation... but it is sourced.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That's all well and good, but lack of inline sourcing makes it difficult for the reader to tell what is sourced and what isn't. In any case, I won't fight over this matter, but will leave things as you have left them. Cheers. Hadrianheugh (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Braemar

Please think about what I'm saying - and take it the way it is meant - as a suggestion and only 'my opinion'.

Generally - think hard before changing how other contributors 'do things' such as reference their sources. I prefer to do Watson (1975) for example, while others might prefer using a 'ref' tag. Correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't thing either way is 'right', but a stylistic preference.

Personally - I prefer to leave other contributors stuff alone unless it's REALLY wrong somehow, or REALLY needs re-arranging. Doing otherwise risks pointless 'editing wars' - WikiWriter (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for responding - carry on the good work WikiWriter (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)