User talk:Hjuk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Ossultone Hundred 3 Harringay 4 Citations 5 Communication 6 Location of Manor House 7 Crouch End 8 Harringay 9 Sort categories 10 Municipal Borough of Hornsey 11 Your images 12 Harringay links 13 OGG files 14 Harringay 15 The tools ... 16 Commons 17 RfA thanks 18 London Meetup - January 12, 2008 19 Sub-cats of History of Haringey 20 Small query 21 Stroud Green, London 22 Possibly unfree Image:127526416_4ccd08814c.jpg 23 About Commons 24 Harringay Cinemas 25 Tom Arnold 26 Wikimedia Commons

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hjuk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  MRSC • Talk 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ossultone Hundred

KB, if you check original sources, you will find that Harringay and Hornsey were used interchangeably. In referring to the manor, the normal appelation was Harringay or Harringhay. The Hornsey version came later, Can you not live with this being represented on the Hundreds page? It is verifiable through ancient documents rather than 19th century history books.

Your comment on the Miidlesex page suggests that you deleted harringay because it was not a historic parish. You are right in that it was never a parish. But you are wrong because hundreds were never based on parishes. They predated them. See the Wiki page on "hundred" for easy reference on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjuk (talk • contribs)

In 'Ossulstone Hundred', A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 6: Friern Barnet, Finchley, Hornsey with Highgate (1980), pp. 1-5, Hornsey rates a mention, but no form of Harringay. Generally, the Victoria County History is regarded as the definitive account of the history of London, because the project is the most heavily peer reviewed historical publication. In respect of the manor of Harringay, I would think (but don't know!) that this is probably a sub-manor of Hornsey. Since the ancient documents aren't to hand, I'd probably go with the Victoria History. There are two criteria on writing history on wikipedia: the first is verifiability (WP:VER) (of which there are many arguments) and the second is no original research (WP:NOR).

Also, you've been editing Haringay and the boro' page - no argument with that, some of it is a definite improvement and I'm glad to see someone having a go at it. I would urge you to look at other writings on settlements in London to a). try to keep to much the same style, b}. endeavour to reference your work in the same style as them, c). not quote websites verbatim, and d). write prose, rather than disconnected sections - it looks like notes at the moment. If you need to experiment, or work something out, then please use your Sandbox - with Wiki you're publishing immediately and that should be at least partially complete. Use the Sign your username button to sign your comments. And if there's anyway I can help, pls feel free to ask. Good luck Kbthompson 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the e-mail. Those links appear to be managed by session cookies, so aren't accessible to me. I did a quick search through the Nat Archives, and the references I found were to either the house, or a person connected with the house - no major mention of Harringay in another context before the 19th century. While I appreciate you may know your stuff, I remain concerned that this fails both the verifiability (WP:VER) and original research (WP:NOR) tests for the encyclopaedia. The NA only provide documents on payment of a fee, and individual wills, etc. are primary sources - i.e. the definition of original research. cheers Kbthompson 09:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the e-mail. Wiki shys clear of OR because it moves into the area of speculation; the intention is to produce a verifiable reasonable quality encyclopaedia - but not a place to publish primary research. There may be documents in archives, but they remain subject to interpretation, and that's what our friends at Victoria History do, interpret and verify the source material and place it in context.

On Wikipedia you're right that there are in fact "higher" classes of users, they tend to be appointed to these god-like positions through popular acclamation. As you can appreciate, I'm not one. However, I do a bit of work with the WPLondon group trying to standardise and improve the quality of articles about London. Wiki is an open source project, but that doesn't mean there are not rules to help everyone get along that little bit better. I'm sorry if you felt that I decide what's acceptable, I don't, I'm merely trying to help you; left like they are your edits are likely to be reverted by someone who doesn't engage in civilised discussion (yes, it's wiki) ...

Now for a nice cup of tea ... Kbthompson 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at Rainham, London for an article that is improving towards 'Good Article' status, in particular, the discussions on the talk page indicate what is required in a Good Article. HTH. Kbthompson 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the e-mail. Material in the VH is usually acceptable. I do wonder why the original text for the Ossulstone Hundred and Middx articles didn't mention Harringay. Often the position doesn't become clear until you've done a lot of reading around the subject (I often change my mind half-way through a piece of research!) - unfortunately, I'm not an expert on that part of N. London - more an E. Londoner myself, but if you stick it in and reference it, the mob can make their own minds up. You have to be prepared for others heavily editing what you've written - if it's well referenced and follows the format, then that's less likely to happen. Time immemorial just means the reign of Edward I (I think), they lost the records before then! The bishops of London held the manor of Stepney, because they were responsible for garrison and maintenance of the tower. There were extensive lands that came with them. Up that way, tends to be Dean and chapter of St Pauls. Cheers Kbthompson 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harringay

Hi and thanks for your emails. Etymology should go near the begining. I started work on copyediting the article, but decided I needed a break from the screen. We can use Talk:Harringay to discuss changes. 'abcd' refers to multiple use of a single reference, for guidance see: WP:REF. I've also added a welcome message to the top of the page which will make some of the workings of the encyclopedia project a little clearer. MRSC • Talk 12:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Hi and thanks for your email. See WP:REF. It can't be stressed enough how fundamental this is to the project. If reliable citations cannot be found for things, they should be removed. Books are best, but online sources are also ok. For the Harringay article, something which talks broadly about what kind of commercial center it is might help i.e. large, small, just a single road. The GLA and local councils often produce descriptive information about districts. MRSC • Talk 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

Hi Hjuk. You've sent me a few emails today regarding the Harringay article. It is usual for almost all communication regarding articles to take place in what is known as the 'article talk space'. This is so other parties can also contribute and there is a record. I have replied to the points you raise in your emails regarding the etymology on Talk:Harringay. Please feel free to add your ideas and comments there. My most immediate concern regarding that section at the moment is that text has been changed to say something other than the citation it is attributed to, and this is not good. Your edits are valued. Use Talk:Harringay to discuss how the article can be improved, and to ensure we do not add problematic text. MRSC • Talk 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location of Manor House

Hi, I noticed you edited Manor House, London. I've never been happy about the inference that Manor House is in Haringey. I've had correspondence with User:Kbthompson about this. User_talk:IsarSteve#Manor_House,

My take on the location is that all to intents and purposes Manor House is in Hackney, It's only the "Park side" of the Junction that lies in Haringey and this side of the Junction is the "dead" side, all three built-up sides of the junction lying in Hackney. --IsarSteve 08:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your "style" on the Manor House page.. quite happy with it..--IsarSteve 09:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I just wanted to thank you for the new photo of Grand Parade on the the Harringay page...

In the late 1950s we lived in the Harringay Gardens area and one day I decided to go and see "what it was like" out there in the big wide world. My journey was ended on the corner of Stanhope Gardens/Grand Parade (Your Image) by a concerned neighbour who took me back home (I was only 4 years old). I like to date my "Wanderlust" back to that moment and my parents also quickly realised that I wasn't going to be a "Home Boy".

I'm really pleased you've "positively" improved the Harringay site and that it isn't all doom, gloom and criminals anymore... --IsarSteve 10:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It was a bit gritty / grimy before wasn't it. One of my first efforts was to remove the Heroin bit. But it was plonked straight back in. I hope its current treatment satisfies all. I have a few more photos, but assume that if I put on too many the page will be slow to load. I thought you were local from hereabouts today. From yr last msg, sounds like you've moved on? Depending on your age, I guess you've seen some changes, eh! Appreciate your non-pedantic voice of reason amomgst a world of zealous pedants!

hjuk 11:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the photos, you might be interested in using a "Gallery" like we use on London Bus routes: See 236 and you're right... Harringay has changed ... it was always a bit "apart" from Tottenham.. back in the dark old days of the 50s early 60s, Shops had "early closing days". Whilst in Tottenham (and Wood Green) it was Thursday, in Harringay it was Wednesday and in the days before everyone had a fridge, Tottenham and Harringay residents considered themselves very lucky to be able to have a possibilty of obtaining fresh food on early closing day. Bah.. it was another world... :o) --IsarSteve 12:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Before fridges! Ok I guess that helps me time-locate your memories. Do you have any photos of the area back then?

hjuk 14:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey... we always had a fridge!! as long as I can remember.. a TV too.. and photos... nah.. only back garden views... :o( shame.. so you can date me from those points... thank you very much  :o) --IsarSteve 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crouch End

Given that you and I seem to be the only ones who ever actually do anything to this page other than add their friends & family to the "residents" section, do you think it would be worth deleting the "Living in Crouch End", "Urban legends" and "Notable appearances" sections? (Ideally, I'd lose the "Residents" section as well, but I suspect that would start a revert war.) None of these sections seem to have a) any sources or b) any possible use to anyone (unless there's someone with a burning urge to know where "Kate Kannibal out of The Priscillas" lives). — iridescent 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it, but probably won't put much time into it myself. I did (overdid?!) Harringay, fiddled with Manor House and a few others. I've been tempted by Hornsey & Crouch End, but I know if I start I'll end up spending far too much time on them.

It was nice see your response to my little rant on the Crouchie talk page. I thought I couldn't be the only one who had such a visceral reaction to such tosh. It's such an odd article as it stands. I have a good idea what sort of people/persons may be driving it and the sort of things that may motivate them, but have little sympathy. It reads more like the sort of entry you'd expect to see on facebook. hjuk 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted it at WP:LONDON to see if anyone has any ideas on how to clean it up before I delete it. As on the article I wrote on Crouch End's evil twin, Broadwater Farm, it is possible to write a valid trivia-and-residents section. Just difficult and probably not worth the effort. — iridescent 19:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Got a bit carried away this evening and ended up moving things round a bit. I realised that there were in effect 2 famous/notable residnets sections. What's left as info on CE is pretty damn thin. hjuk 02:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If no-one else expands it, I'll add it to my ever-growing to-do list. Expect it to be expanded and rewritten some time around 2012 at the current rate. — iridescent 03:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tidied it all up a bit, see Talk:Crouch End. I also deleted three of the banners. If I've done so wrongly, feel free to reinstate. - hjuk 14:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Irridescent, just wondered what you think of the Crouch Hill page - for me there's no case whatsoever for claiming Crouch Hill is a discrete area. A road, sure, but not a particularly important one. - hjuk 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm on record as saying that only areas that have a distinct historical/legal boundary such as Muswell Hill, Broadwater Farm, Crouch End etc, should have their own articles (Finsbury Park, London should IMO be booted off for starters). Otherwise, you get endless "this road is really in Stroud Green not Crouch Hill" debates; especially in a place like Crouch Hill that straddles borough boundaries. However, consensus seems to be that those pages that exist should be kept (see the sniping and grumbling over Harringay, back in the WT:LONDON archives). If you want to tidy something that urgently needs tidying, you might want to have a look at Gray's Inn Road, an article most people take one look at and try to pretend doesn't exist. — iridescent 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ok. I'll resist the Crouch Hill temptation. I looked at the WT:LONDON archives) on Harringay. Did I find the right article? I was expecting from the sense of your entry to find something debating whether Harringay warranted its own page. Couldn't see that - just the ole where are its boundaries dispute. Is there another page/entry?

Also took a look at GI Rd - grief, someone would really hafta wanna, eh.

hjuk 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tried to get the page semi-protected against anonymous edits, but as you can see the request was turned down. I think in future it would be worth issuing warnings to these types of users, by posting {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on the user's talk page (this is a friendly "Welcome to Wikipedia" message with a suggestion that at least one of the user's recent edits was inappropriate and has been reverted). There is further information on warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I think if we adopt this approach and there is no perceptable decrease in vandalism we'll probably have a better case for semi-protection in the future.--Steve James (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harringay

That style of navigation box isn't really consistent with the normal WP article style. There are several possible approaches.

• The simplest is the method I've used, with an italicised line at the top of the article pointing to the related article(s).
• Another approach would be to use a series box: for example:

Part of a series on Harringay
History
History of Harringay (overview) History of Harringay - Prehistory to 1750 History of Harringay - 1750 to 1880 History of Harringay - 1880 to present

Any other articles on Harringay could be listed in this box too. It could be stored as a template and included in all the related articles.

• A third approach would be to (mis)use a succession box - these are usually placed at the end of an article though:

Hjuk History of Harringay
Preceded by History of Harringay - Prehistory to 1750	History of Harringay - 1750 to 1880	Succeeded by History of Harringay - 1880 to present

Colonies Chris (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris; most helpful. I like the series box. That looks very useable. I'll pop it in.(Just did so - actually it's more than useable. It's brilliant. Thank you!)

I'm surprised that the nav box I used is verboten because I took it from a featured article on the history of a person's life. I can't remeber who though!

Thanks again for your help.

hjuk (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'd prefer not to see the link in the form Article_title#subheading, you could create a redirect to hide it; e.g. what displays would be 'Entertainment in Harringay' and behind the scenes that's defined as a redirect to 'History of Harringay#Entertainment' Colonies Chris (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. And how does one create a redirect? hjuk (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Create an article called e.g. 'Entertainment in Harringay' but its only content would be

REDIRECT [[History of Harringay - 1880 to present#Entertainment]]

(you can type this manually or use the #R button on the toolbar for the skeleton) Then just change the entry in the {{main}} template to point to 'Entertainment in Harringay'. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok that's done. But why did it need changing? The way it was done worked fine and was much more straightforward. It would be interseting to know the reason? hjuk (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The {{main}} template, and a number of other useful templates such as {{for}}, {{seealso}}, {{distinguish}}, {{disambig}}, {{lang|xx}} and others, are widely used for the sort of requirements that are common to many articles. Using the template instead of hand-coding ensures consistency of style, and separates the meaning from the presentation. It means that a change to the presentation style can be made with a single change to the template rather than changing perhaps thousands of articles individually, and it allows automated scanners to identify characteristics of articles (particularly important for the likes of disambiguation pages, identified by the presence of the {{disambig}} template, or foreign-language text, identified by the {{lang}} template). Unfortunately the {{main}} template doesn't provide a way to pipe a link in the way that normal links can - the redirect is a workaround for that lack. Mostly the template is used to point directly to another article by title rather than to a subsection within an article, so the problem doesn't often arise. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a full and informative answer. What's odd is that the main template page does provide a way for what shows to be other than the destination page, but it doesn't work. Is it fixable? hjuk (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the template had that capability. It seems to work OK - for example

Main article: A different title from the article name

Colonies Chris (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then hopefully we both learned something there then. I think it's badly explained in the template article. In the explnation l1 (letter, number) comes after 10 and looks like 11 (number, number). If the template article cd be changed I think that wd help. It shd also explain that any subsequent appearnce changes are coded l2, l3 etc. Don't know if you're able to facilitate that change.

Thanks again for the help.

hjuk (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sort categories

The normal way is to add a word the article must be sorted by, after the category. e.g. [[Category:People from London by district|Holloway, People from]] [[Template:London people message]] does this automatically for London people categories. There is another trick to make all categories sort the same way. That is to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Holloway, People from}} to the article, by convention above the first category. Hope that helps. MRSC • Talk 07:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply MSRC. I had thought it might be [[Template:London people message]] that did it. I tried it on [[Category:People from Haringey by district]] to no avail. Any chance you might take a look and tell me where I'm going wrong? hjuk (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is sorted now. The extra category syntax in each of the place categories was overriding the categorisation scheme in the template, so just had to be removed to make it work. MRSC • Talk 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I undertsand what you did - which wd be useful so I can replicate in the future. But thnaks for sorting it. Much appreciated. It's part of my trying to stop some of the pages round here being so focussed on notable people. In overhauling the London Borough of Haringey page to less of disaster, and previously the Crouch End notables section, I'm trying to get the articles' notables sections focussed on just a few key people but making the other notables that people want to reference easy-to-find through the cat links. hjuk (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can see how you fixed it. Thanks again. hjuk (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Municipal Borough of Hornsey

Hi you might want to add population stats for the Municipal Borough of Hornsey - they are on Vision of Britain - sometimes you have to dig for them. (see: Metropolitan Borough of Hackney for an example). If I had time .... Kbthompson (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

But....but.....but....I keep telling myself, just 5 miuns today......I won't......I can't...Is it just me or is this damn thing horribly addictive? It's like the garden. I go out there to snip one branch and come back in 3 hours later.

Thanks for the pointer on the population. Having tidied up the Haringey page somewhat (nothing sparkling, but no logner a disaster I hope), I'd picked up one interesting fact I wanted to add to Hornsey. But then the page didn't make sense...and how does it link with....and before you know it. So I'm sure I won't be able to help myself and I'll dig out those pop stats then. hjuk 11:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha, that's how I get caught up in stuff - next you know, you're taking it to GA! With regard to your other problem. Take a look at Template messages; you have to issue a final warning (with previous ones), before taking it to Vandalism reporting. The process is straightforward, but infuriating when you just know the little creep is vandalising, but you have to go through all the levels. HTH, to the question you withdrew ... Kbthompson (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your images

I notice you've uploaded a lot of images recently. Can I advise you to be very careful about the copyright license you have been using? Your map of the Parish of Hornsey from 1815 was taken directly from the Victoria County History here and is therefore a copyright violation. The Haringey ward map is from Haringey Borough Council and is also copyrighted. I have deleted both of these as copyright violations. The maps of the parishes which I think come from the Vision of Britain website are originally Ordnance Survey and I think must also be still in copyright. Images from the Bruce Castle Museum are watermarked which must make their status questionable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quickly deal with the Bruce castle images now so you don't delete anything else - they're watermarked as part of an expilcit writen agreement between myself & Bruce castle. Ditto Hackney archives. Both agreed I could use the images if I watermarked them and only used a certain resolution. They understand the implications of having images on Wikipedia. Will come back to you on the maps when I have more time. hjuk 12:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sam, more on the maps. The two you deleted were my error - apologies. I had wrongly assumed that due to their source they'd be GFDL. I've now written to both copyright owners to ask for their permission to use them on Wikipedia. If they agree, fine. If they don't, shame, but the sky won't fall in and I won't use them again.

As far as the old borough maps are concerned, they're not from Vision of Britain. I was given them quite some time ago and along with them I got a wriiten statement about their provenenace and the fact that they are GFDL - I've been trying to find that, but haven't been able to yet. I will keep looking. Please be assured of my honourable intentions. I actually spent many weeks emailing back and forth with Haringey (Bruce Castle) and Hackney Councils to get the appropriate permissions. (Actually Hackney turned me down at first, but then agreed after further consideration). So I do understand the issues and have been trying to make sure my images are fully in line with Wikipedia policy. Seems like I got lazy and boobed with the two you removed. hjuk 19:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harringay links

Why did you relink the two boroughs? They're already linked earlier in the same paragraph. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Chris, perhaps I'm being dense or am just too tired, but I can't see where they're linked earlier in the same para. They're linked in the picture caption, but not, unless I'm missing it, earlier in the same para. I think it's not overlinking to link in the caption and the para. Thanks again for all the tidying you're doing. It really helps to have someone look over it with a fresh eye. hjuk (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the links are not really in the same para - at least not in the formatted article. Sorry for the confusion. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OGG files

Hi Hjuk,

Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't allow sound files to be uploaded in anything other than Ogg Vorbis format, because it is completely open-source, unpatented and free, unlike formats such as mp3. Files in any other format would simply be deleted as a violation. This page and its talk page have some further info. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harringay

I was reading carefully (about to move to Harringay!) and something seemed wrong. Took a couple of passes to work out what it was though! :) —Danio, Bibliophylax (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gardens. Thanks for the link! —Danio, Bibliophylax (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The tools ...

The next step in wikipedia (aka welcome to my world) ... the hopeless vandal. Yes, you can revert them ... but what they really want is Template messages, then they can have a go at you personally. If it's childish, I tend to let it go, but if persistent then follow the procedure, giving them a 1, then a 2, etc. when it gets to 4 you can report them to Vandalism reporting. It will be my absolute pleasure to help. Since he/she's done it multiple time already, I started with a level 2 warning. If it's a one-off, I tend to let them off - unless there's a pattern of vandalism. Kbthompson (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at User talk:77.103.7.209, enough warnings and the IP can go to Vandalism reporting. It's not to be taken lightly, but that's the way to do it. Vandalising a user page is usually enough for an immediate block, but in this case the vandal is not active, so we let it lie until the next time - it's in the history. Kbthompson (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, thank you for your support. I'm not supposed to WP:CANVAS, so I can't actually say what for! A proper thank you is appropriate when the discussion is closed! Kbthompson (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KBT - much appreciated. I'd never looked at at an RFA page before, but was struck by the level of support vs opposition. I'm sure it's much deserved. Good luck. hjuk (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Please upload your free images to Commons to save the work of others later having to move them to Commons. MECU≈talk 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.

Thank you for the kind words, not so sure about the tricky question. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-cats of History of Haringey

There's a discussion on WP:London about these sub-cats, they're probably a little over categorised, and should go back into the parent category. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small query

Do you know much on Northumberland Park? I finally created the link to the suburb. See Northumberland Park, London. Simply south (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I know where it is, but little else. If you're sounding me out for contributions, I'm probably the wrong guy. If you're interested, I'm in touch with one of the local councillors from that area (an uncommonly decent guy). I can sound him out as to whether he knows someone with the skills and the interest. hjuk (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stroud Green, London

Thanks for the offer of the picture of the Eel Pie House. Maybe it is quickest if you can upload it direct to the page? Although, that said, I am happy to add it myself from an image link in Wikipedia.

NB. I also left a message to the same effect on the Stroud Green, London discussion page.

Thanks for the picture, duly added. BTW (just to be academic) let me know if you have details of the original, i.e. artist, medium (watercolour?), owner, current location etc. :)) Ucypanp (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ucypanp (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Waatercolour, 1844, Artist unknown, Guildhall Library Print Room. Ca suffit? hjuk (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ucypanp (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:127526416_4ccd08814c.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:127526416_4ccd08814c.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Commons

Well, Wikimedia Commons is another wiki, just like this one, but is set up as a media repository. Images that are here on the English Wikipedia can only be used here, but images on Commons can be used on any Wikimedia (the organization that owns Wikipedia and its sister projects) wiki, including English Wikipedia as well as German Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, English Wiktionary, Portuguese Wikibooks....and so on and so forth. We try to move images over to Commons wherever possible because it's more efficient than each of the projects maintaining their own copy. Also, Commons has their own categorizing system that makes finding images a lot easier. Since it's been transferred, we'll delete the local copy from English Wikipedia, but your image will still be on Wikimedia Commons and will still be able to be used here, so you don't have to worry about anything. I'll look into the categorizing issue — the tool I used to transfer it over to Commons categorized it automatically, so it probably messed up picking a category; I'll go back and correct it. So yeah, don't worry about it, there's not thing wrong with your image, and it won't be completely thrown off Wikipedia, so you needn't take any action. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harringay Cinemas

Nothing major, but perhaps a few inline sources (direct quotes rather than paraphrasing) will help assert the claims. I'm not dispute the truth (or the verifiability), just some footnotes may aid the article. The main issue is that the statements cannot necessarily be matched to the sources. In order to verify claims, direct or indirect quotes should be used (the latter of which you have done in places). Cheers. Booglamay (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice one - no worries! Booglamay (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Arnold

Sorry. I should have put the "citations missing" template, not the "unreferenced" template. I've made the change. Laureapuella (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading your media there instead. That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)