User talk:Senra/Archive 8
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Senra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
Please comment on Talk:Hunnic Empire
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hunnic Empire. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL
The Signpost: 05 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history
- In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing
- Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion
- WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
- Featured content: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open
Please comment on Talk:University of Pristina/RfC: split proposal
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:University of Pristina/RfC: split proposal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2012
- Interview: Liaising with the Education Program
- Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters
- Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators
- Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History
- Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case
- Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education
He's buried in Ely Cathedral, and I recall seeing the tomb which is quite prominent and mentioned in the article. Worth a photo next time you're in the cathedral: I think there isn't one on Commons. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts
- Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again
- WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas
- Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting
The Signpost: 26 March 2012
- News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music
- Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed
- Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature
- Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.
Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Senra. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 09 April 2012
- News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
- WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut
- Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week
- Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases
Please comment on Talk:Radical Right
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Radical Right. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 April 2012
- Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Discussion report: The future of pending changes
- WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
- Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
The Signpost: 23 April 2012
- Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"
- WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files
- Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content
- Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review
- Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?
Please comment on Talk:Three-dimensional chess
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Three-dimensional chess. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 April 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
- Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default
- WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps
- Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings
- Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases
The Signpost: 07 May 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
- News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013
- WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages
- Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases
- Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed
Please comment on Template talk:Pashtuns
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Pashtuns. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 May 2012
- WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse
- Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week
- Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure
Talkback
Message added 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Shrike (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 May 2012
- From the editor: New editor-in-chief
- WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....
- Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending
- Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content
Please comment on Talk:Khosrow Sofla
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Khosrow Sofla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 May 2012
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends
- Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph
- WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology
- Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese
- Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits
- Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6
The Signpost: 04 June 2012
- Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women
- Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change
- WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts
- Featured content: On the lochs
- Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban
- Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon
Please comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 June 2012
- News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI
- WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit
- Featured content: The cake is a pi
- Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases
The Signpost: 18 June 2012
- Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?
- News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia
- Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Please comment on Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 June 2012
- WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics
- Featured content: A good week for the Williams
- Arbitration report: Three open cases
- Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches
The Signpost: 02 July 2012
- Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism
- News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool
- In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?
- Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport
- Featured content: Heads up
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools
- Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5
Please comment on Talk:Mali
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mali. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 July 2012
- Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football
- Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'
- Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration
The Signpost: 16 July 2012
- Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling
- Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations
- Featured content: Taking flight
- Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June
- Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted
The Signpost: 23 July 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
- From the editor: Signpost developments
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics
- Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans
- Featured content: When is an island not an island?
- Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history
Please comment on Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 July 2012
- News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing
- Featured content: One of a kind
- Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases
The Signpost: 06 August 2012
- News and notes: FDC portal launched
- Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases
- Featured content: Casliber's words take root
- Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts
Please comment on Talk:List of African-American firsts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of African-American firsts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello again!
Two years back, when you and I were newbies, you were kind enough to comment on the Christchurch article, which after taking on board your comments and the comments of others, I managed to get to Good article status. You pushed on with your Little Thetford article of course, reaching the dizzy heights of a Featured article. I now have a Featured article candidate and hoped you would be interested enough to join the conversation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dorset/archive1 and give us the benefit of your opinion. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 August 2012
- Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden
- Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration
- Featured content: On the road again
- Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit
- WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution
- Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship
The Signpost: 20 August 2012
- In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia
- Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.
- Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension
- WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea
Please comment on Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 August 2012
- News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide
- Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?
- Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten
- WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who
The Signpost: 03 September 2012
- Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?
- Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror
Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Churches in Bedfordshire
This came up on the administrators' noticeboard because of a huge edit war. I decided to have a go at it. But I've only done one of the apparently two churches by that name. The article could stand to have more on the second church, I think. So (after consulting my talk page archives to remind me who that person interested in U.K. churches was) here I am. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi and thanks for the heads-up
but I need a little more context here. Where within the Admin' noticeboard is this 'huge edit war'?I can see in the history a reversion battle occurring between Logistics Speaker (talk · contribs) and Gwenlen (talk · contribs); one trying to promote a feature film and the other trying to prevent said promotion. To be honest though, I reduced my Wikipedia input due to similar huge battles in the past so I'm not really wanting to get into that stuff again. - Do these references help at all?
- Historic England. "Details from listed building database ({{{num}}})". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 7 December 2012.
- 'Parishes: Clophill', A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 2 (1908), pp. 320-325. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62657 Date accessed: 07 December 2012.
- Nikolaus Pevsner's Buildings of England: Bedfordshire, Huntingdon and Peterborough might have something to say about the place too
- For the record, I am not that interested in 'UK churches'. I am more interested in local history; specifically East Cambridgeshire. However, I have created detailed articles on two local churches viz St James' Church, Stretham and St George's Church, Little Thetford plus I have had considerable input into other churches. The reference and bibliography sections of those two articles might give you some hints on where to find more information. Consider, for example, Crockford's clerical directory (access is usually free via a UK library card), Clergy of the Church of England or the Felstead (Bells) database
- --Senra (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#St Marys Church, Clophill, and you need not worry about the edit warriors. They've all had their account editing privileges revoked, and the edit war was over what is really, once one considers what an encyclopaedia article should be telling readers, only a very minor thing. Architecture, history, and geography are far more important to this article than whether someone on the WWW has just made a spooky movie. Wikipedia is supposed, after all, to be a proper encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, why I'd like to obtain and write more about the replacement church in the village centre, and probably work in things about the rectors if that turns out to be appropriate.
I'll have a look at what you cite, as much as is accessible to me; although if that 1908 one is by William Henry Page it's already used in the article. That's good stuff, though. I will, despite your protestations, continue to remember you as someone to consult about churches and villages in the U.K.. Locality, by the way, is relative. From some perspectives, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire are right next to each other. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ha ha. You could have thrown part of Queen Gertrude's speech from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III scene II,230 back to me which is oft misquoted as "Methinks thou dost protest too much" and you would have been right! Point taken. Do let me know anything that is not accessible to you. I am always willing to help. For example, I'm pottering off to the local library this afternoon and I will see what Pevsner has to say about St Marys Church, Clophill as I know that Pevsner is not available on-line. Also, that 1908 link was indeed written by W H Page --Senra (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Consider also ...
- Clophill Heritage Trust has received a grant of £100,000 towards the repair of Old St Mary’s in Bedfordshire
- The church is apparently a scheduled monument as well as a listed building
- The church is on the English Heritage At Rick register (e.g. 2009 page 38)
- --Senra (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've just taken your {{WPB}} from Talk:St James' Church, Stretham. I leave the ratings up to the wiki-project members. As you may notice, I found out about the EH funding from an on-line newspaper, and I have the listing as well. I also found a contemporary journal by a William Laxton that I'll have to check is William Laxton, that provided stuff on the new church. What I'd really like, but I doubt you can provide, are the architectural plan and illustration that are on the immediately preceding page, Laxton 1850, p. 6 , which would make a very informative addition for the reader. I'd have to check their copyright status (1850 is probably out of U.K. copyright for architectural drawings) though. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Plans of both churches may be available at Lambeth Palace Archives. I will have a look when I get home. In the meantime Pevsner has a quarter page on the old and new churches at Clophill. I will drop you a link to an image of the relevant page via your Wikipedia email when I get home --82.103.128.45 (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Erm the above was me --Senra (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not Lambeth Palace Archives but I found four entries for "Clophill" at Church Plans Online although each entry is accompanied by the statement "No plans exist in the archive". It is not clear to me whether any or all of these entries refer to the old or the new church. These entires might still be worthy of review as they declare work done when and by whom --Senra (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Senra, you protested too little. I'm also adding you to one of my shitlists, as a Person of Knowledge. Thank you so much for your help--and allow me to reiterate that Uncle G has done an outstanding job in expanding the article, and that we don't need to fear those edit-warriors again. At most they can become a minor nuisance. Thank you again, Drmies (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, Drmies --Senra (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Senra, you protested too little. I'm also adding you to one of my shitlists, as a Person of Knowledge. Thank you so much for your help--and allow me to reiterate that Uncle G has done an outstanding job in expanding the article, and that we don't need to fear those edit-warriors again. At most they can become a minor nuisance. Thank you again, Drmies (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- More information ...?
- In 1848 at least, patron of Cophill was Earl de Grey from Coate', A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848), pp. 644-647. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=50886&strquery=clophill Date accessed: 07 December 2012]
- "There are two bells which were removed from the old church; the treble by Emerton of Wootton, 1774, and the second dated 1623" from 'Parishes: Clophill', A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 2 (1908), pp. 320-325. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62657&strquery=clophill Date accessed: 07 December 2012
- History of the priory which I don't pretend to understand though the sentence "... these arrangements were completed before the death of John of Wheathampstead in 1464, and the priory disappeared so completely that even its site was for a long time forgotten." caught my eye as it might (synthesis?) date the church from 'House of Benedictine monks: The priory of Beaulieu', A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 1 (1904), pp. 351-353. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40033&strquery=clophill Date accessed: 07 December 2012
- --Senra (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've just taken your {{WPB}} from Talk:St James' Church, Stretham. I leave the ratings up to the wiki-project members. As you may notice, I found out about the EH funding from an on-line newspaper, and I have the listing as well. I also found a contemporary journal by a William Laxton that I'll have to check is William Laxton, that provided stuff on the new church. What I'd really like, but I doubt you can provide, are the architectural plan and illustration that are on the immediately preceding page, Laxton 1850, p. 6 , which would make a very informative addition for the reader. I'd have to check their copyright status (1850 is probably out of U.K. copyright for architectural drawings) though. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#St Marys Church, Clophill, and you need not worry about the edit warriors. They've all had their account editing privileges revoked, and the edit war was over what is really, once one considers what an encyclopaedia article should be telling readers, only a very minor thing. Architecture, history, and geography are far more important to this article than whether someone on the WWW has just made a spooky movie. Wikipedia is supposed, after all, to be a proper encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, why I'd like to obtain and write more about the replacement church in the village centre, and probably work in things about the rectors if that turns out to be appropriate.
I have Earl de Grey already. It was in the 1850 source. I still need to sort out which Earl that is. The bells are new, as is the priory. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is no which as I believe patronage is "The right of presenting a member of the clergy to a particular ecclesiastical benefice or living" (OED n 1.) and the title "Earl de grey" is a hereditary peerage so is only held by one (in this case male) person until becoming extinct on the death of the last holder dying without issue. I therefore believe it correct, for example, to say "patron Earl de Grey" --Senra (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is in this case. The stone wasn't donated by a title. It was donated by a person. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I altered the bit about "Portland style" to "Portland stone", since I couldn't find any references to the former, and (judging from a photo) the windows etc. appear to be made out of a light-coloured stone. If that's correct, did de Grey donate the Portland stone? Ning-ning (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Laxton says sandstone. Uncle G (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Aha. We are talking at slight cross-purposes here. My comment beginning "There is no which ..." is in reference to my earlier comment beginning "In 1848 at least, patron of Cophill was Earl de Grey from Coate ..." (my later emphasis). The donation of a stone is a different matter entirely and indeed, in that case there is a which Earl de Grey --Senra (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- What a fascinating story. I'm intrigued by Lincoln Diocese's decision to build a new church, in what is a very small community (pop. 1,066 in 1848), based (in part, I assume) on the two documented enquiries in 1827 and 1839 (Church Plans On-line "Clophill"). I also note that, according to Church Plans On-line, the new church was built between 1848–50 under the Diocese of Ely and then approval was granted for renovation between 1961–62 under the Diocese of St Albans. Incidentally, the 1848–50 build cost of £2,300 equates to a present day (2010) value of £1,580,000 (Measuring worth: using average earnings). Truly fascinating --Senra (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- The £2,300 includes glazing, erecting the tower and nave, mortar, roofing (including purchase of lead), purchase, transport and cutting of Portland stone, purchase of pitch pine and oak, construction of flooring, ceiling, pews, pulpit and doors, moving bells and lych gate from the old church, drainage, landscaping of the churchyard, architect's fees and labour. Agricultural labourers in 1845 earned 2 shillings a week, so taking that as a base level, and assuming twenty unskilled labourers worked on the church for two years, the wage bill would have been £208. The price of lead in 1836 was £24 a ton and declining; estimating a weight of 30 tons, (Bere Regis church used 52 tons in 1628 for its roof) and a price of £18 gives a cost of £540. The figure of £2,300 seems a bit cheap. Ning-ning (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- You noticed the name of the 1958 chapel, then? There's probably a little more to say on the subject of the rebuild decision. There's certainly more to say on the rectors over the years, which anyone reading this is welcome to add. An article like this should be fascinating, I think. It's doing its job if a reader like you comes across it and sees more than "run-down ruin that was the subject of a fad in the 1960s and 1970s". Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ning-ning: My goodness! Your attention to detail puts me to shame. Was that financial costs detail from "The Ecclesiastical gazette ..." (1850)? If so, are those Gazette's available on-line? I could use that kind of information in future --Senra (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Uncle G: "... anyone reading this ..."—there's only you me and Ning-ning. Anyway, it's you who is making it fascinating. A superb article. I do feel that the decision to build the new church seems like a prime example of Victorian restoration gone mad and almost (but not of course by definition) a folly --Senra (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Senra: no, sorry, I just entered a few search terms like "price of lead in 1850". All very approximate! I suppose the decision to build a new church could have been justified by its position on the flat next to the village, and not on a hill. Imagine walking up Old Church Path on a wet windy day in a crinoline, and sliding down afterwards. Ning-ning (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I altered the bit about "Portland style" to "Portland stone", since I couldn't find any references to the former, and (judging from a photo) the windows etc. appear to be made out of a light-coloured stone. If that's correct, did de Grey donate the Portland stone? Ning-ning (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is in this case. The stone wasn't donated by a title. It was donated by a person. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops
Sorry. Chienlit (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- No need. Really. Special:PermanentLink/527061243 beats Special:PermanentLink/527079669 fair and square my friend --Senra (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
RE: GA: Ely and Littleport riots
Hello, sorry for not replying sooner. I personally still think that this should qualify as a good article, but to tell you the truth it's been so long since I reviewed/wrote anything properly for Wikipedia, I suspect the standard of GA went up to an "almost a featured article" standard (I must have missed that memo), so I'm probably not the best person. I suppose what would be good is to see if the issues brought up in the original GA nomination can be fixed and then have another go at nominating it and see what another reviewer thinks, as I think the assessment was probably a little over expectant for a GA, at least at the time. Thanks Rob (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Cinematic television
I just wanted to say that your analysis and presented rationale on the AfD were very impressive. I wish we could all do that sort of thing in all deletion discussions, regardless of outcome. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- In general, I prefer to vote Keep in AfD's. In this case, I carried out some research, laid out the results and voted accordingly. It still hurts to see an article being deleted though --Senra (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
DYK for William Jennens
On 24 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Jennens, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the fortune of England's richest commoner, William the Miser, was lost in lawyer's fees in 117 years of litigation over his estate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Jennens. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass 12:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Translation of response for those interested.
- The nominator should stop denigrating the article and use common sense instead of talking nonsense. Perhaps [consider] WP:RX for The Times Wednesday, Dec 31, 1980; pg. 2; Issue 60814; col G or perhaps WP:RX for The Times, Thursday, Mar 31, 1983; pg. 12; Issue 61495; col A?
I.e. use the resource exchange to read some reliable sources
--Senra (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Centuries in Stretham
Hi Senra, I saw your reversion of my changes to Stretham. As you asked, I reviewed WP:CENTURY again, and I'm not clear on what you were intending. The changes I made seem to me to be appropriate. Help me understand. Same issue at Little Thetford. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. In the featured article Little Thetford I was inconsistent in my use of hyphens between numeric centuries. For example in the lead of this version see 7th-century and 10th century. My understanding stems from the Little Thetford FAC and this discussion where Malleus explains: It's Xth-century when used as an adjective, such as Xth-century cottage, but Xth century otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 13 July 2010, Tuesday (2 years, 5 months, 18 days ago) (UTC+1). See also:
- 10 July 2010:7th-century to 7th century
- 22:55, 12 July 2010:global replace of all th cent with th-cent
- 22:59, 12 July 2010:finish replacing missing hyphens between Xth-century (following MF's earlier edits today – hope I'm doing the right thing here :(
- 13:57, 13 July 2010: Remove hyphens from some Xth-centrury rep[lace with Xth normal space century
- I guess I have always been confused with this rule. In this particular case, I reviewed your link WP:CENTURY before reverting you. I could not find evidence for your change at WP:CENTURY. However, on reviewing Malleus's 13 July 2010 statement and your changes in the light of WP:ORDINAL I now agree with you. I have reverted my revert.
- --Senra (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick and clear response. My understanding is that the hyphen is used when the ordinal (20th) and "century" are used together as an adjective to describe the next word, whereas no hyphen is used when referring to the century as a noun. For example, you'd have a 15th-century house, but a house built in the 15th century. Have a happy new year. SchreiberBike (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Your sub-page
I have deleted User:Senra/Breast cancer awareness as you requested. That means that the reference to it at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Trial citation style conversion has become a "redlink", but that's not a problem. You could add a note there to explain what happened, but it's not necessary because anyone interested can click the redlink and see the deletion reason "U1: User request to delete page in own userspace" and ask you if they really want to know. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Thank you --Senra (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Uncle G pointed me to the same drmies talk page entry, and I started the article because it seemed interesting. A lot more could be added. You are right to query use of Ancestry.com, although it seems plausible and its J.C. Bloodgood article cites other sources. His wife's name, charitable work and year of marriage are mentioned in Mansel, Sweetland & Hughes 2009, p. 17. I put in the ancestry.com details as a holding entry to remind me to track down a better source. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Great. Thank you. Happy new year (for whenever it arrives for you) --Senra (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 08:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. at any time by removing the
Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do not have access to that journal. My UK Library Card gives me access to everything from these Cambridgeshire County Council: Online Reference Databases including much of the Gale Journals Collection. I have checked there for your publication without success. I see you have raised your query at WP:RX. I am sorry I am unable to help further --Senra (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you anyhow.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Page move request
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page. |
During the peer review of Ely and Littleport riots 1816 a reviewer, Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs), suggests that the page-title should be changed. From his suggestions, I favour Ely and Littleport riots of 1816 with a redirect from the existing Ely and Littleport riots 1816. As I have not completed many page moves with redirects, could someone help me do this please?
--Senra (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done. As the target did not exist, you could have done this yourself: see WP:Moving a page for instructions, in case it comes up again. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. Yers I know I could have done it myself but I was worried about the implications to the reviews and the GAN. Once again, thank you --Senra (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
How to correctly replace a commons image
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
From this page I raised a request to alter an image here which has now been done. I thus have two images, the original and the new one. What happens now? Do I download the new one and upload it as a new version over the original one? What is the correct procedure please --Senra (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Or is it better just to replace the image directly in the article? --Senra (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd just replace the image directly unless there's a specific reason to get rid of the old file at the Commons. They seem to be sufficiently different that it's probably better not to overwrite the old one. Huon (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Much appreciated --Senra (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You made your point
...at RFARB. Yes, Hex was partly baited. However, he's still responsible for his actions. He's also responsible for replying. We don't block for the low-level of baiting that occurred – admins are held to higher levels. Stop trying to insert a red-herring, and if you want to warn the other party for civility by baiting, feel free. However, I think they already are aware of such by now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is not a red-herring to me otherwise I wouldn't be asking so strongly for clarification. However, thank you so much for taking the time to respond --Senra (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dwaipayan (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of course you are welcome to review the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities may give you some India-oriented perspectives, although that page is quite old and not updated. Kolkata is an Indian city article that is featured article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just posted in the FAC page, and then saw your message. First and foremost, my sincere apologies for the ill-mannered response. Please pardon. Details in the FAC page. In a nutshell, I want you back, reviewing the article, please. Based on your recommendation, I was planning to change the structure of the article. Once again, I am sorry. Please resume. And I thought you found Torchiest's comment combative, so mentioned that in FAC. After reading your message to me, I understood you were referring to stfg. I can not comment on that. But sorry for the confusion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- FAC page updated, please have a look. And once again I request you to come back reviewing, I am really ashamed of my behaviour.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sources added in toponymy section for the view that Haider Mahal was the inspiration of the name. One additional view also added. Please see FAC.
- Hyderabad was not a princely state when established in 1591. It became a Princely State during the British rule. This term is generally specific to nominally sovereign states in British India. Also, citing Everett-Hill alone may not be a good idea, as his book (2005 edition) was subject to some controversy, due to blatant error in the entry for Bangalore. I did not remove already-existing sources, since I did not add those, neither do I have access to those (the three Chicago University Press publications), although they are not books on origin of names.
- Plus, I do not properly understand the use of diacritics. I have tried to incorporate those now. Please see if any further addition is needed. Do you think diacritics are needed for the name of the Caliph?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note that I have formally withdrawn from the FAC review. However, as stated, please do continue to ask my advice whilst you think I can help. It is great to learn that you are willing to critique sources such as Everett-Heath. My own point on Everett-Heath is that I trust his view on toponymy rather than the other sources that are/were in the article. In any case, yesterday I fired off an email to a UK toponymist for his view on the toponymy of Hyderabad. I mentioned Everett-Heath and asked if he knew of other reliable sources. I have not yet received a reply. If/when I do you will be the second to know (after me).
- FAC page updated, please have a look. And once again I request you to come back reviewing, I am really ashamed of my behaviour.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just posted in the FAC page, and then saw your message. First and foremost, my sincere apologies for the ill-mannered response. Please pardon. Details in the FAC page. In a nutshell, I want you back, reviewing the article, please. Based on your recommendation, I was planning to change the structure of the article. Once again, I am sorry. Please resume. And I thought you found Torchiest's comment combative, so mentioned that in FAC. After reading your message to me, I understood you were referring to stfg. I can not comment on that. But sorry for the confusion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Diacritics. Please note that this is my own personal view (backed up by a UK toponymist friend of mine): in a toponymy section it is my view that diacritics are important to include if they are properly sourced because it helps other toponymists. Diacritics are beyond the general reader (such as I) and should thus (in my opinion) not be used throughout an article. I rarely create such diacritics myself. I digitally copy/paste them from sources.
With regret
I'm sorry that my comments at the Hyderabad FAC offended you, Senra. There were reasons why I was very upset, and they are detailed elsewhere, but I have never wished to offend you. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I accepted your apology elsewhere. Please feel free to seek my advice (for what it's worth) as I have access to some sources you may not have. Good luck with the article --Senra (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but it was Dwaipayan's apology there, and the sources would be for him or Omer123hussain. I am the copy editor who was involved. My expression of regret is the one above. --Stfg (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, sorry. I have emailed Dwaipayan a full explanation. I will send that same email to you, Stfg. Publicly, I will say that you have not directly offended me in any way. I of course read previous reviewers comments at FAC and in this particular issue I may have been unduly influenced by your (Stfg) comments elsewhere. If that is the case, I am sorry to both of you. I sincerely wish you both well and I know the article will pass through FAC at some point in the future --Senra (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Email received. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, sorry. I have emailed Dwaipayan a full explanation. I will send that same email to you, Stfg. Publicly, I will say that you have not directly offended me in any way. I of course read previous reviewers comments at FAC and in this particular issue I may have been unduly influenced by your (Stfg) comments elsewhere. If that is the case, I am sorry to both of you. I sincerely wish you both well and I know the article will pass through FAC at some point in the future --Senra (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but it was Dwaipayan's apology there, and the sources would be for him or Omer123hussain. I am the copy editor who was involved. My expression of regret is the one above. --Stfg (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
With my thanks.
Drmies (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 1, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk) · @813 · 18:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
How I found the review
It is still listed from those pages: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Peer review/Ely and Littleport riots of 1816/archive2. As for me, I came to it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Article alerts. If there is a bug, i is probably part of the Wikipedia:Article alerts, process. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Image gallery
Hi Senra, thanks for your help. I didn't want to remove anything without first checking with editors who are very experienced on the topic, like you. I just wanted to make sure guidelines were being applied properly. Btw, I believe you linked to the wrong guideline on the article's talk page. You linked to Gallery pages, which failed consensus. I think you meant to link to WP:Galleries, right? That's what you said on the Help Desk ("Consider removing the Hiram College gallery per automated review, WP:NOT and WP:Galleries then placing the removed gallery on the talk-page.") Thanks, again. --76.189.106.37 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yups. Sorry. Now fixed to WP:Galleries and you are very welcome --Senra (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem... just wanted to make sure. Btw, you fixed the link but the text still says "Gallery pages" instead of "Image galleries". :p Have a great evening. --76.189.106.37 (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
wiki editor medal
- For the record I have no idea of the backstory here. I am not in any way commenting on behaviour by non administrators. I am simply observing unsanctioned uncivil, arrogant and ingratiating behaviours by those privileged editors who are not earning the trust we gave them: Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), Maunus (talk · contribs) and Mathsci (talk · contribs). By not sanctioning such behaviour we are condoning it as a community and that is a very bad double-standard --Senra (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I find it ironic that you use personal attacks to complain about personal attacks. I find it equally odd that you can't bring such matters up at the appropriate noticeboard. The VP is not the place for it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)