User talk:Penfold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Penfold, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in.

If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 22:50, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Old Commenst

Oi! [1] -- Tim Starling 12:49, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, re: national grid. I'm looking into it. Morwen 07:50, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Penfold. Why are you creating all of those years in archaeology pages? They each only have one event on them, so shouldn't the content be put in the main page for the year? LDan 17:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I based the format on List of years in science, following up a suggestion on Talk:Archaeology, which is why there's a page per year. There's only one event on most of them at the moment because there's a limit to how fast I can type (and remember/look up stuff). Over the course of the next month they should (most of them) become packed with archaeological goodness.Penfold 18:30, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Over on VfD, I've suggested that they be merged with the appropriate List of years in science descendant page. I think it would solve everybody's problems. Comments should be directed to Talk:List of years in archaeology -- Cyrius | Talk 20:20, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Penfold, just a note to say thanks for fixing some of my more egregious errors, once the spirit is upon me I can become very lax at checking whether my stuff actually makes any sense. I respect your anonymity but was idly wondering whether you are named after the sidekick in the brilliant Dangermouse cartoons? adamsan 10:10, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Entirely my pleasure. Nice to see another archaeologist here---I like your work. Maximum respect for prodding the horror that is Archaeology and keep up the good work on the Graham Hancock front.
Re: the Penfold thing: Spot on. Penfold 10:42, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Howdy Penfold, noticed you've edited the Petersfield and Churcher's College pages. Could you note any changes in the corressponding talk page? thanks Grunners 00:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Why? The page history will show you what I've done. Penfold 09:33, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
It doesn't say your exact edit, I was just curious as to what changes you'd made Grunners 19:07, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes it does. Once you've gone to the page history, click one of the links labelled either cur or last to see exactly what has changed.
Also, are you aware of this: WP:CV#May 23 ? Penfold 09:10, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

(moved from User:Penfold)

There has been an outbreak of categorisation. It is a sort of conceptual vandalism. What is the advantage in including a link to British Archaeology within e.g. the Shepton Mallet page ? Surely there has to be some sort of justification. --JPF 16:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shepton Mallet is the site of one of the largest and best excavated Roman small towns in Britain, although admittedly the article is at present a bit thin on details.
Agreed that it would be meaningful if there were more text on the subject in the page. Are you suggesting that the criterion for inclusion is whether there have been excavations in the particular location? If so, then that would include most (all?) towns in the UK.
No. I'm telling you that the Roman remains at Shepton Mallet are (well, were, IIRC there's a Babycham factory on top of them now) impressive and important at a national level, if not an international level. All being well, I'll get round to adding this to the relevant page at some point.
I can't respond to your assertion that categorisation is a sort of conceptual vandalism because the phrase has no meaning for me. I can't respond to your remark that there has to be some sort of justification because you are implying that I'm acting at random, which seems unnecessarily offensive on your part. Penfold 17:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The phrase conceptual vandalism was not particularly elegant. I was referring to a number of categorisers and not just to yourself. My point is that whoever gets to the page first can stamp their categories on it.
Umm, no. As far as I am aware there are no restrictions other than common sense as to the number of categories that can be added.
This leaves it more tricky for others who come later (like the Vandals sacking Rome). I am suggesting that the page has been "captured" by whichever category was there first.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Using the category "British Archeology" is not so intrusive as some I have come across which are equivalent to banner boxes. Suppose that there are 100 categories that apply to a town - are they all to be linked to the page? I personally find it hard to see any reasonable justification. It does seem "random" to the disinterested reader when an enthusiast starts putting in links. This is not a pejorative term - it means that it is impossible to predict which category is going to come next. If a bus arrives randomly it does not mean that the bus driver was driving randomly. Whilst this may be an inevitable route to take on the Wikipedia project, I was asking if there is any way to make the categorisation more pertinent.-- JPF 21:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suggest you add categories that you consider relevant to pages in which you are interested. Penfold 08:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Other than the fact that it's the correct name?

Police Act 1996:

"Appointment of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. 9B. -
(1) There shall be a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
(2) Any appointment of a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall be made by Her Majesty by warrant under Her sign manual.
(3) A person appointed as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure.
...etc."

I have heard "Metropolitan Police Commissioner" more often than "Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police", but I think the article should be under the correct name. Andrew Yong 22:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. Although I think the fact that the names Police of the Metropolis and Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis are never used in day-to-day conversation or the media indiucates that your move was not wise. In addition, you have left Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in an inconsistent state. Either the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is the head of the Police of the Metropolis or the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is the head of the Metropolitan Police Service. You also need to explain why you are using a nomenclature that sounds absurd to the ears of 99% of the UK population, i.e. a reference to the 1996 act. Penfold 10:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Issues about school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome back

Good to see you're back Penfold. Frankly, things have gone to pot in your absence! adamsan 11:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Hullo Adamsan. I was glad to see that you're still contributing. Congratulations on the Archaeology WikiPortal. It looks tops. Not sure if I'm going to hang around. Keep up the good work. Penfold 21:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hancock

Thanks. I think this one may be a long haul. Hopefully the chap won't notice that I'm really a giant reptilian humanoid with links to the Vatican and Area 51. I'm having some drinks tonight so will resume the debate tomorrow. adamsan 18:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camden

Hi, Penfold,

I saw your changes to William Camden. I'm not going to go back and change things again, but I will note the following from the Manual of Style: If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. and If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article. I'd also note that the word Chorography, "a geographical description of a region," is not the same as Choreography, "the art of creating and arranging dances or ballets." Camden's Britannia is a work of chorography. This was noted in the previous edit summary. I'm going to fix chorography and leave the rest up to your conscience. PRiis 22:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Bag Jobs

Hi, Penfold,

Ages ago (November 2003) you cleaned up the article Black bag job and left an external link from totse.com. (The Temple of the Screaming Electron.) The site appears to be having technical difficulties, so I removed the link and preserved it on the article's discussion page. Hopefully, the site will recover its content in due course. Gosgood 17:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!


I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Tyrwhitt

Hello ! I'm a french WP user and I'm translating (trying to translate !) some articles from the en:WP. Today, my subject is fr:Thomas Tyrwhitt from Thomas Tyrwhitt. I've seen that, except a bot, you are the last user of this article (for a minor edit...), I know nobody in the en:WP and I have a little question to ask : so it will be you (sorry for that bad luck !). In the last chapter of his life, it is said that he published a Vindication of the Appendix in reply to the arguments of those who maintained the genuineness of the poems and at the end of the upper chapter with an appendix to prove that the poems were all the work of Chatterton. Maybe I'm a poor translator but I think there is a contradiction. Should the word doubt have been used instead of maintain ? I don't want you to search in any encyclopedia, just a little reflection about the two sentences ! Sorry to have bothered you. If you agree to answer to me you can do it on my blank discussion page. I thank you in advance. See you later ! ℍenry, encyclophile (speak slowly, please) 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it effectively reads `he published an edition of Chaucer's `Poems' to which he added an appendix in which he {demonstrated|asserted} that the poems were actually the work of Chatterton, not Chaucer' then `In 1782 he published a work called `Vindication' in which, in response to authors who claimed that the Poems were in fact the work of Chaucer, he re-asserted the claim that the poems were actually the work of Chatterton'. I think. I may well be wrong. But I don't think that there's a contradiction, it's just not terribly well written. Penfold 17:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is maybe the solution (my little grey cells are working strong !) : the problem is not with Chauncer but with Rowley (1748-1807) still alive when TT edits the serie of poems : one part of those poems is supposed to be written by Rowley and the other part to have been written in the 15th century. At the time of the edition, Chatterton (1752-1770) is dead, suicided when he was 17. TT give arguments in the appendix of the only edition of both series of poems to prove that they all are Chatterton's poems. Those who maintained the genuineness, maintained that the poems where Rowley's work. You're wright anyway, it's only not well written. Bye ! ℍenry, encyclophile (speak slowly, please) 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Needham

I'm encouraging editors who have worked on this article in the past to come to its talkpage and build consensus on what to do about a persistent vandal to it. If you have the time, I'd love your input.--Rosicrucian 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Lewis

Grovelling? I beg your pardon, sir! I think you may need to check your facts. – Agendum 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Go on then. Thesis title? Penfold 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Mighty Handful/The Five

Hello. I've just move the content in the article titled "The Mighty Handful" to the page for "The Five". I did this because Encylopeaedia Britannica lists this group as "The Five" [2] and Columbia University Press's Encylopedia also refers to this group as "The Five" according to this page [3]. The third source here, giving "The Mighty Handful" is this article....I don't have my copy of "Grove's" handy, but I know that they also list this group as the Five. People looking for "The Five" aren't going to find this page. It should be moved. What we have now is a page which redirects to another page which redirects back. Is there any way you might consider moving this content to "The Five" per these sources? Thank you in advance.Musikfabrik 09:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I wasn't paying attention. Penfold 14:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It probably looked like vandalism. I had to do it the round-about way because of the redirect that was already there....Anyway, the Russian contingent will probably move it back, since they're bent on using the translation, but usual english for this group is "the Five"....thanks for understanding. I've moved it all back. Musikfabrik 14:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ram Roy Bhaskar

Hi Penfold,

regarding the Roy Bhaskar article, I wonder why you keep writing only and egoistically your POV. I personally know Mr. Bhaskar and Mr Maclennan and you are causing them both distress with your comments; you can check this link if you like :

<http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/archive/gmac_abtf.html>.

so you can see by yourself that you are reporting something that is not true. Remember, wikipedia has been created with the idea of reporting real information, not to attack someone you might not like, like you are doing at the moment. In any case I hope we can sort this matter out as soon as possible. Regards Lucakun

We can sort this out if you'll stop vandalising the article, and provide either a counter-viewpoint rather than simply erasing that which you consider unflattering to your hero, or provide some sort of justification for your grovelling.
Would you care to elucidate exactly how the above link is supposed to justify your white-washing?
I've reverted your intellectually dishonest modifications to the article again. You have provided no justification for the removal of Maclellan's quote and the surrounding material, and you have replaced it with an unsupported assertion.
Whether or not you know Bhaskar and Maclennan is irrelevant. I don't believe you do---it's just another fatuous, unverifiable assertion on your part---but if you are typical of the man's acolytes it might explain why his work has gone downhill so badly in recent years. Penfold 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] roy bhaskar

HI Penfold, I don't lower myself to your level of insults, because I find you very comical, you see,believe it or not I really know Mr. Bhaskar, but I 'm not an academic or a critical realist and I never attended any of his talks, I m just someone who happen to know him outside his work enviroment, you might not understand that because you probably don't have any friends outside your enviroment, or even you don't have any friends at all, which will explain why you spend your all day on wikipedia adding, changing, reverting, you must enjoy a lot!!! Anyway I just want to let you know that I will keep adding that version everytime you change it, until you, little secretive person, will get bored of that. Therefore I do not add a hero point of view, but just a more balanced one that Mr. Bhaskar and Mr. MacLennan approved as accurate. I guess you haven't read my link, that is why you stubbornly insist on your SAD POV. Anyway keep in contact, I found you strangely interesting and if you like I can be your Dangermouse. regards Dangermouse

Please avoid reverting without discussion, as you have done at Roy Bhaskar. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I will, I didn't know how to do it before. regards

[edit] Eric Sidney Higgs

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Eric Sidney Higgs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. LowKarmaError 22:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monument Class Description

I've added a number of links to the above page. You may wish to look at them. Rjm at sleepers 09:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)