User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive Dec 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Syed Faiz-ul Hassan Shah 2 Thanks 3 George Cross articles 4 GC Template 5 Scully photo 6 DYK 7 Mentoring Barnstar 8 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wiccan Roots.jpeg 9 Speedy deletion of Petrol beast 10 Troop 510 11 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007) 12 Barnstar 13 my RFA 14 Haley Industries 15 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast 16 RfA 17 RfA Thanks 18 Thanks 19 template 20 Christianity in China

[edit] Syed Faiz-ul Hassan Shah

Apart from the upper case, why have you prodded Syed Faiz-ul Hassan Shah? I have just this minute taken down a speedy notice, and moved it to a new title. This person is a published author on Sufism, and probably has other works too. Charles Matthews 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Because as it stands the article is irredeemable: it would take far more work to edit it into shape than to write a proper, encyclopaedic article from scratch. I agree that the speedy notice was unwarranted - it is not nonsense. Just extremely badly written. But not every published author is notable, and no evidence of notability has been cited here. By all means, remove the prod if you wish - that's your prerogative. But I don't think the article as it stands adds value to Wikipedia. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has been cleaned up. Charles Matthews 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job, well done! I admire your commitment to combatting systematic bias - by a weird fluke I also rescued a Pakistan biography yesterday. Zaka Ullah Bhangoo had been posted by a relative of his as a copyvio from several websites, and speedied 4 times before I saw it. Luckily there were some easily obtainable sources - not so easy for Syed Faiz-ul Hassan Shah, it seems. Good luck with trying to find them! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for tidying up Eastman's article and removing the speedy. I keep being told by editors of varying nationalities and ages that George Crosses aren't notable or that the London Gazette isn't a proper source or that whatever internet site I also cite isn't good enough and my patience wears thin. I've a limited window of time to get through the lot and so I appreciate your help in adding categories etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome Nick. I'm going to try and write a template that we can use to start these pages, so that the appropriate categories etc are there from the start. This will hopefully prevent people carelessly slapping speedy notices. I'll post onto your page when I have something. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Cross articles

I note with relief from the above that you are planning to set up a template for these articles. If you do, could you please make sure it includes the link to the London Gazette site? Thanks.HeartofaDog (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that didn't I. Which is a bit silly as I don't know how to write a template... What I have done is create a few category tags for people to stick on the bottom of articles, but I agree something more formal (with links to the Gazette etc) would be better. I'll see if I dare learn how to write a proper template! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Very foolhardy! But you may not need a full-blown Wikipedia template with all the bells and whistles - perhaps just a specimen with the full set of links would be adequate. Perhaps an easy interim way round it would be set up one fairly large article of the type with all the necessary additions, to which to point irritated editors. (Anyway, I would find that helpful). Good luck. HeartofaDog (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One existing template you may find useful is {{LondonGazette}}, which provides consistent formatting for gazette references (can also be used for the Belfast and Edinburgh Gazettes). Using the template should also assist in maintenance of these references - we currently have the situation where the gazette website was update a couple of months ago, breaking all existing references to it. I'm currently (slowly) trying to fix them. The template should contain sufficient info in its aprameters that if the site is changed again, all we need do is fix the templae, and all the refs will magically be fixed as well. David Underdown (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

David, that's a great help. One question: what about an issue like this where the Gazette itself was published on the 30th July, but the Supplement is dated 3rd August. What value should go into the date field - the Gazette or the Supplement?

And while this discussion grows, it occurs to me that a User talk page is not the best place for it. Is there a Wikiproject where we could take this (or do we need to establish one?) Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So far, I think I've used the date of the original issue, as that is what appears on the front page, and in the navigation frame above the pdf, then int he text I've noted the date given for the award or whatever. At the moment, the best place for this type of discussion might be the template talk page, as it seems to cut across multiple projects (I've previously notified the projects on Baronets and Peerages about the template), and thinking about it now the ones on Military history and Orders, Medals and Decorations might also find it useful. Any asistance in going through the list of articles here and converting things to use the template, also gratefully received. David Underdown (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GC Template

Remarkable! Looks very good - I wouldn't have had a clue how to make one. DuncanHill (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scully photo

Are you sure that's the provenance of that photo, there's no indication on the GC site where it originally came from that I can see. David Underdown (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello David, I think the GC site have probably taken it from the RPC Association site here. However there's no more provenance there either... From the look of the photo, it appears to me to be a formally taken portrait (possibly just before the CG award itself? See background which looks like a substantial building, possibly Buckingham Palace?) Of course this is supposition on my part and I don't know if this will be sufficient for the image copyright controllers... I do think articles benefit enormously from images and I tend to add wartime photos with this broad assumption that they fall under the {{PD-BritishGov}} tag. However I am probably less conservative about this than I should be, and if you think the assumption is unwarranted then we'll remove the photo. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be a bit dicey to make that sort of assumption, could have been a press photo or something - the other option is to email either or both of the websites to see if we can better understand the source. I agree that a photo makes a great difference to a page, but I don't want to see anyone getting blocked because an admin thinks thy're mis-using copyright tags. David Underdown (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 22 November 2007, a fact from the article Hugh Randall Syme, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mentoring Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		message thanks for helping out my students! You made a lasting impression on them! Thelmadatter (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wiccan Roots.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wiccan Roots.jpeg. 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) 05:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale added, including link to article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 07:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Petrol beast

A tag has been placed on Petrol beast requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Brianga (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, something funny is going on with PRODs today - this is the second article (originated by other editors) I have prodded which seems to have reappeared as if I had authored the article, with only my Prod template as content! I don't know if it's worth reporting to someone as a glitch - but I don't know who or where to report it! At any rate, it will hopefully be deleted soon anyway! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've worked out what was happening. Both times, I have been Prodding an article and there has been an edit conflict with an admin simultaneously deleting it. Then when my Prod eventually registers, it recreates a page which had been deleted moments before. I'll try and bring this to the attention of folk with mor technical knowledge than me! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troop 510

I thought I was in sandbox at the time, sorry. It is fine if you deleted it already. Emericanbuddha^{(Talk to me)}

Hi there, I can't delete articles as I'm not an admin but I suspect someone will come along and do so soon. I think you may have trouble keeping this article alive in main space unless it is a really exceptional troop and has done things out of the ordinary to get itself noticed. However if it has - then all good luck to you! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 23:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for taking the time to work with new users, and to look beyond the problem to see the solution. - Philippe | Talk 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my RFA

no, thats absolutely fine! its probably better that it did fail in a way; i'd rather use the comments from it to improve than go into the job with all these flaws hanging over my head. so i'll get better, get more experienced, and try again in six months. thanks for the advice and comments! O keyes (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haley Industries

Thanks for your offer of help. The article has been deleted twice, without notice, and a considerable amount of work was put into laying it out - twice. I'd like to retrieve th deleted work, but there's no trace of it. BomberJoe (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Have replied on your talk page Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a copy to BomberJoe's talk page as requested. I am concerned about the remarks on Talk:Haley Industries but will not respond as do not want to aggravate further. Davewild (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Dave. Will try to keep things calm from here on! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For clarity: I pasted a sentence from this article into Google and came up with an apparent CopyVio. I therefore tagged it as a CSD. I am the British editor of whom BomberJoe complains. I am not the admin who deleted it. There was no {{hangon}} tag placed, although for a CopyVio that would probably not have made any difference as these CSDs take priority to protect the Foundation. However, he has now said he will take me to ArbCom about it. I don't have a problem with that and have advised him that he needs to take it to WP:DRV first. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is now reinstated I have advised the editor that deletion review is inappropriate and in view of his tone towards me have invited him to go here instead. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 12:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast

Hi Kim. Please see my qestion at the above RfA Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. It's been answered. Pedro :  Chat  20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thank you for your taking the time to comment on my RfA - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast. I've added comments that might clarify some of the issues you had concerns with. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the talk page. I have responded there - Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast - and hope it goes someways to answering your question. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

[edit] Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for the brilliant work you've been putting in on the Wicca- and witchcraft-related articles. The Wicca article in particular has transformed phenomenally under your tender ministrations, to the point that it's actually readable and informative, and doesn't make me wince whenever I try to read it! You've been putting a lot of hard work in, and I just wanted to let you know that I recognise that and really appreciate it. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks Fuzzypeg, I really appreciate that! It's always good to get positive feedback from an editor whom one respects in turn. Now what will be really good is if in a few days Wicca is ready to submit for good article review: then we can see what the rest of the community thinks of our work! BB, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] template

why do you take from me what i have done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0000000ga (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Because as I explained in the edit summary and on your talk page, this particular template, {{Wicca}}, has not reached consensus for use: in other words most of the editors who have commented on it do not feel it is appropriate for using in Wikipedia. Why not come to the talk page I've set up here where we can all discuss the relative merits of the various templates that are available? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

On a tangentially related topic, I'm curious about this edit you made to the instructions for adding the {{WikiProject Neopaganism}} template to article talk pages. The NA class was only intended to be used for project pages or other pages not associated with an article and therefore not needing assessment info. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that's what the page I set up was: a project page unassociated with a single article. I simply copied the markup from another project talk page, but if it's wrongly applied please revert or correct it! I'm a bit of a newcomer when it comes to this, and not always certain of how such templates should be applied.... Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I took care of it. It was the instructions that got changed there, rather than the template itself, but everything else looks fine as far as I can see. And I know I haven't weighed in at the discussion yet, but I do support a wait-and-see policy on the templates. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I really should know better than to meddle with markup... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity in China

Hi, can you help me with this issue? --Esimal (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)