User talk:Bleaney/Archive 2009

Cheshire project new articles list

Hi Bleaney -- thanks for notifying the project about Risley (HM Prison). In future, could you add new articles above (or below for stubs) the note about the portal, please. That way they don't miss out on being featured in the new articles section of the Cheshire Portal. Thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ranby (HM Prison)

On January 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ranby (HM Prison), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bedfordshire et al

Hello, thanks for your message. You asked a good question, so I had a look at the policies that seem to cover this.

There is a policy for counties at WP:UKCOUNTIES, which states under "additional subpages" that the places of interest should not be on the main county page but on List of places in Bedfordshire

which lists all of the settlements in the county, and a separate section lists places of interest, such as tourist attractions

So what we could do is copy and paste all the current Beds stuff into that page. We could then simply link List of places in Bedfordshire from the "See also" section of Bedfordshire, Central Beds, Bedford (borough) and Luton, which would save a lot of work....

I think the pages for the unitaries fall under WP:UKCITIES which has a list of prescribed headings. "Places of interest" is not one of them.

What do you think?

Lozleader (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Central Beds, per the local government legislation, will be a "county for which there is no county council and in which there is not more than one district"! AFAIK the term "unitary authority" has no legal status. The structural order states:

A new county and a new district, both to be known as Central Bedfordshire, are created for the same area as the existing districts of Mid and South Bedfordshire. A new district council, the Central Bedfordshire Council, is created for the new district and will be the sole principal authority for the district. There will be no county council for the new county.[1]

Which means that you could legitimately use either infobox! I would go with the district infobox: on looking at the Cheshire East and CWC articles, there is an empty "Districts" section that comes as part of the county box, although I think this can be removed. Lozleader (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow.. you have been busy over the past few days! Thanks for all your hard work on Bedfordshire, I'm sure lots of people really appreciate all the work you put in (I certainly do!). Shritwod (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels

Hello Bleaney, since your creating a lot of television channel articles perhaps you would like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a fairly simple one, all of the UK television service provider's channel lists are either based off List of channels on Sky Digital in the UK and Ireland or editied to be similar to it. This issue was raised on List of channels on Virgin TV and the section was renamed as Channels removed from Virgin TV. I'll make the change to the Freesat page now, thank you for pointing that out. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Boys Town (juvenile detention centre)

Hi, My name is Pat Thoms & im a youth worker at Boys town Engadine.

I would like to request that the tittle be changed for "Boys Town" Engadine (juvenile detention centre)

Boys town Engadine is far from a Detention centre, It is a voluntary service for families at risk of family breakdown, who are committed to improving their relationships, Boys/family choose to be a part of the program & are not forced or advised by courts/laws.

Could it be changed to something like...

Boys Town (residential school for boys with behavioural issues) or

Boys Town (Residential Family Preservation and Restoration)

Thanks Pat Thoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.46.212 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are still not using the edit summary. Are you purposefully ignoring this? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

North and Middle Littleton

Hi Bleaney/Archive 2009! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as needing a little attention, updating, or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:North and Middle Littleton--Kudpung (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

B4U (network)

"world's leading", "a leading brand", "strong presence" are examples of the advertisement feel of the article as a whole. Do not remove the template until it is rewritten in an unbiased fashion and reviewed by a third party. Because you created the article it looks like babysitting or ownership when you remove tags without addressing the problem. You've done this in the past.  ^{æronphonehome}  03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry about the mix up over the user page and talk page - my ignorance. C0pernicus (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad!

Here to help articles tagged for rescue! Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Bleaney, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 02:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Northamptonshire

Hi Bleaney/Archive 2009! A Top Priority article you have been involved with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Northamptonshire, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. (This is a generic message. if it has been placed on your talk page inadvertantly, please ignore it.) --Kudpung --Kudpung (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pitch TV & Pitch World

Although the parent company has gone into liquidation, the channels still continue to broadcast JML content as Skyisthebest pointed out on List of channels on Sky Digital and the edits I made to both of the channel pages. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

King's House, Jamaica

Extended content

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of King's House, Jamaica, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.kingshousemedhelp.com/gov/history.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your effort to address the copyright concerns here. Unfortunately, what remains constitutes a close paraphrase with some stretches of verbatim duplication. It needs to be rewritten completely in your own words unless you are able to verify that the original source is licensed compatibly for use on Wikipedia. For one particular example, consider the following from the article: In 1908 however, fire destroyed a coach house, the stables and some of the menservants’ rooms. These were all rebuilt within a year. The present King’s House has a very similar structural appearance to the house after reconstruction in 1907. The source says: In 1908 however, fire destroyed a coach house, the stables and some of the menservants’ rooms. These were all rebuilt within a year. The present King’s House has a very similar structural appearance to the house after reconstruction in 1907. I have blanked the article pending resolution of this matter. Please do not restore the text. If you wish to rewrite the article, there is a temporary space now linked from the article's face in which you may work on a new version. If you are able to verify that the material is licensed for our use, in spite of the Copyright © 2007 MedHelpJamaica.com on the source's face, the text will be restored following that verification. For more information please see our copyright policy and requesting copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid that State House (Seychelles) has similar issues, with text also closely paraphrasing and directly taken from a copyrighted source. It has been blanked to permit time for this matter to be addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Typically, these are blanked for seven + one day; however, if you're finished with them, there's no reason to delay. I'll come take a look at some point in the next hour or two. I will, however, be looking at some of your other articles just to be sure that this problem does not exist in others. I see that you have received notices from Corensearchbot in the past, so it seems that you may have followed too close on source material in other articles. We'll want to be certain that whatever text is now displayed is legally usable by the project. Please be careful in the future not to copy from external sites or to follow them too closely. There is a user essay at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing that might be helpful in determining how much revision is necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The changes at Talk:State House (Seychelles)/Temp are certainly a very good start. I am concerned about this paragraph, though, and will explain why: The building was called Government House during the years when Seychelles was a British colony and was under the authority of a Governor General. State House was also the residential home of the governor. The building was designed and built in 1910... The source says: This sublime and majestic building which is a National Monument was called 'Government House’ during the years when Seychelles was a British colony and was under the authority of a Governor and his Legislative Council. State House was also the residential home of the governor. The building was designed and built in 1910... If you look at those side by side, it may be a bit easier to see where the problem lies. I've bolded the text that is duplicated in the source quote to highlight this. While the facts are not copyrightable, the manner of expression them (including what facts are chosen and the order in which they are represented) are. This run of text is far too close to the original to establish a new copyright. I often find it helpful myself to reorganize material, as revising sentence by sentence can be challenging. For instance, I might say: The State House was designed and built in 1910, when Seychelles was still a British colony. Then known as the "Government House", it was the residence of the Governor General, beginning with Edward Davidson in 1912. Typical of the colonial architecture aesthetic of the time and place, it features a two-storied portico ornamented with white pillars. It can be a pain in the neck having to put text into your own words, but most text--even if seems fairly straightforward--features enough creativity to earn the protection of US copyright laws which govern Wikipedia. (If you like any of the text in my example, you are welcome to use it without attribution. I waive that right. :))--Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC) No, you certainly don't need to stop editing. I haven't blocked you for copyright violation. However, as I have confirmed copyright concerns in these two articles, I do need to double-check to be sure that your earlier articles conform with our copyright policy. It may be that some revision will be required with passages in those as well. If you'd like, I can invite another copyright administrator to help me in this review. You certainly seem to be a good faith content contributor, and I don't see any reason to believe that you have intentionally violated the copyright policy. But perhaps you have not understood the degree to which you must rewrite previously published, copyrighted material in order to use it on Wikipedia. Corensearchbot is an indicator that this misunderstanding may have been ongoing for some time, but Corensearchbot does not pick up everything. After all, I detected the problem in State House (Seychelles) by a direct comparison, not because Corensearchbot did. I'll take a look at the two articles of immediate concern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) ←I have moved the temporary page to replace State House (Seychelles). Thank you. The other one gives me an opportunity to point out a bit more what is meant by rewriting. The article says, "The present King’s House has a very similar structural appearance to the house after reconstruction in 1907." This sentence is copied verbatim from the source. Very simple sentences presenting basic information straightforwardly (ex. "Edward IV was born on 28 April 1442.") are not copyrightable, but most sentences--including that one--are. They can only be reproduced in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline, with direct quotation and citation (in limited amount and circumstances). You can certainly include that fact, but you must put it in your own words. For example, "Although the building was reconstructed in 1907, it retained much the same structure." Other than that one, remaining artifact from the source, I believe that this temporary page is in good shape. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC) You say, "obviously got a fair bit to learn"; don't we all? :) One of the beauties of the project is that we bring together various strengths and backgrounds to create this fabulous encyclopedia. There are plenty of areas where I have a fair bit to learn (and some where I probably never will). Please don't be embarrassed. It's not my intention to make you uncomfortable. I'm happy to work with you in correcting these problems so that you can continue to help with building it confidently. I'll just let you know if I find additional problems in your earlier edits and we can fix them, and if you have questions about how to revise something you add in the future, please feel free to drop by my talk page. I'm always happy to help if I can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Okay. King's House is back in place. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Hi. Looking at Ayr Cathedral, I see that you seem to have duplicated some text from Bishop of Galloway. This text was present in that article before you edited it, here. Many of Wikipedia's contributors do not realize that Wikipedia's text is not public domain, but liberally licensed for reuse under the terms of CC-By-SA and GFDL. You are perfectly free to take text from one article and put it into another, but you must provide attribution to comply with those licenses. Otherwise, you are violating the copyright of the contributors who created the text. How you handle attribution depends in part on how much you are moving. With a small amount of text like that, it is sufficient to provide a link in edit summary back to the original article, though you must also make a note in edit summary at the source article. (We don't have a guideline specifically on copying text from one Wikipedia article to another, but you can read a bit more about this at Help:Merge and Wikipedia:Split. If you duplicate a whole lot, you should also consider using the template {{copied}} on the talk pages of both articles. I've repaired this one. If you're aware of any other articles where you have copied text without providing attribution, please repair them as well. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Hello, Bleaney. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Hi. This one needs a bit of work. I've located the text at several subpages within the official website. Since it needs a more thorough overhaul, I've blanked it. (We can't publish copyrighted text, so it must be addressed or blanked when discovered.) Let me know, please, when you've had a go at it, and I'll be happy to expedite this one, too, so it doesn't have to remain blanked the full 7+1. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Bedford Museum is also a bit more extensive and awaits your convenience. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Just thought I'd update you that I'm done with the Bs. That's it for today; I'll pick it up later. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Bs are all in place. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC) ←Up to C now. Colesden and Cognita will need rewriting as they contain multiple sentences from the tagged sources. Chawston needs rewriting in the first & third paragraphs of the blanked section. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC) All right. Done with C. Please forgive the misleading time-stamp above. I thought to reduce talk-page clutter by compressing them into one note. While I'm here, given your note about my patience, I'd like to explain what I'm doing. In 2006, when Wikipedia hit US national press over concerns of pasting from other sources, Jimbo Wales told press that we check every contribution by a contributor who has been shown to have copied text from another site. Certainly, we do try, but those of us who work copyright know that this is not always possible. Our copyright violation policy has been crafted to address the shortage of manpower by allowing presumptive deletion of all text added by multiple-article infringers. IMO, though this is sometimes necessary, this is a last resort. Particularly when a contributor seems to have been operating in good faith, I would prefer to verify that there is a problem and, when possible, address it rather than lose content and, possibly, a contributor. I think when we are able to do this, we do a far better service to the project. Since you mentioned seeing me in your watchlist, you've probably noticed that I am cleaning up small matters I find myself. The larger ones I am listing for you. If for some reason, you should choose not to address these, an administrator will attend to them at the end of the listing period, either by revising or deleting, as seems appropriate to him or her. If you have any questions about copyright in general or about these articles in particular, please feel free to ask me. You can also locate others who do copyright work - administrators and otherwise - at WP:COPYCLEAN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Trying to get this wrapped as quickly as I can. El Limonar International School, Villamartin needs attention. I'm going backwards from the base of the Es up through the Ds. By the way, you are welcome to help with this. It is by no means a problem (and actually a great thing) if you want to review some of your own articles, armed with the knowledge you have now, to compare them to their sources and see if they follow too closely. If so, you can simply revise on the spot. (If there are any that you think are very extensive, let me know, and I'll delete earlier versions from the history to help prevent their being accidentally restored.) I'll still be glancing at them as I get there, but it will probably speed the process and could also give you a good opportunity to check your recognition of problematic text. For what it's worth, I've noticed while reviewing that you seem to be very good at finding sources, particularly with all these prison articles you've done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Also: El Limonar International School, Murcia; Edmunds Hill (HM Prison) (I've already done part of that one); Dorchester (HM Prison). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Just as an FYI, someone seems to have infringed your copyright at [2] (unless some of your text is drawn from an offline source). The date of their review is clearly after your article at Dragonwyck (novel), and they incorporate language you use without credit. If you're interested in requesting credit, the procedure is Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. I have myself never followed through with the procedure. I have found such solitary bloggers using my words without credit, but let it go. If I ever found a major site that infringed on multiple articles, I'd probably raise a fuss. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC) ←If you're interested in expanding it, there's more information on Drake Hall here. (It came up on a text string search, but has a lot more than the official site.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC) That's all I found in D & E. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC) working on this batch. I noticed that one revision, created for Edmunds Hill (HM Prison), remains a close paraphrase. Your article says, "after getting drunk on alcohol that had brewed from Marmite." The source says, "after getting drunk on liquor brewed from Marmite." I've bolded duplication just to make it more obvious. This one small segment by itself certainly doesn't rise to the level of copyright infringement because it is too insignificant to legally count. But if you do this in multiple sentences taken from a source, then you are creating a "close paraphrase, a kind of derivative work which only the copyright holder has the legal right to license. I can fix this, but the reason I'm bringing it up is because I've seen this in several articles. They don't own the information, but they own their language and the structure of the material. One very broad rule of thumb: if somebody who hasn't seen either article could look at your sentence and look at the source and say, "Yes, this was copied," you're probably too close. The basic fact here, which they do not own, is that the inmates were drunk on an alcohol they brewed from Marmite. I'm going to rework this to coordinate with the previous information, something like: "Another homebrew was involved in riots that occurred less than a year later, when inmates brewed a liquor from Marmite and fruit juice." Not to throw a new wrinkle at you, but if you've looked at what I've tagged and what I haven't, you may notice that I am less likely to reword something that includes attribution within the sentence. We still can't use the exact language, and we can't overdo this, but you can paraphrase a little more closely if you begin with something like, "EAD24 reported that, less than a year later, inmates at Edmunds Hill started another riot after getting drunk on alcohol that had brewed from Marmite." Obviously, we're generally not going to attribute in the sentence like that with a general news source, but it can be helpful when paraphrasing an official statement or somesuch: "Brigadier General Soandso told press that he was honored by the invitation." Okay. Back at it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I'm going to try to get a big batch out of the way today. :) Here's one: Hydesville Tower School. Also: Holme House (HM Prison); Grendon (HM Prison); Great Denham; Gloucester (HM Prison). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Okay. All done with these. :) A big batch today. As another FWIW, the deeper I've looked, the more convinced I've become that you were absolutely operating in good faith. You are scrupulous about citing your sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC) ←And as an MRG talk page lurker, hats off to you, Bleaney, for taking copyright concerns on board & going back through your articles. It does you great credit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I completely agree. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Talk:Holme House (HM Prison)/Temp needs a bit more revision. The article says, "It also holds un-sentenced young male adults for HMP Castington and young offenders from HMP Deerbolt." The source says, "It also holds a number of un-sentenced young male adults for HMP/YOI Castington and reclassified young offenders from HMYOI Deerbolt." Basically the sentences are the same, with only a few words removed: "It also holds...un-sentenced young male adults for HMP... Castington and ...young offenders from HMYOI[HMP] Deerbolt." The article says, "Holme House offers employment opportunities for inmates within its workshop complex. These are supported by the prison's Education Department which offers both part and full time classes." The source says, "Holme House can offer a variety of employment opportunities within its modern workshop complex. These are complemented and supported by a purpose built Education Department offering both part and full time classes." Looking at this, we see: "Holme House...offer[s]...employment opportunities [for inmates] within its modern workshop complex. These are...supported by [the prison's] Education Department [which] offer...[s] both part and full time classes." Perhaps in comparing these passages side by side, you can see that this is very similar to the situation I commented on in the D&E section above. If you have only removed a few words from your source (even if you've added a couple), you've created a close paraphrase which remains a copyright violation. If this were a US prison, it wouldn't matter, because the US government releases its material into public domain. The UK government claims crown copyright. The facts are free; the syntax & diction are not. Flipping things upside down can help force rewriting (but you have to be careful not to just shuffle their phrases from place to place). For instance: "The Education Department within the prison provides classes, part and full time, to inmates, who are also given opportunities to work." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid Talk:Great Denham/Temp also needs revision. A small matter: "is situated in a loop created by the River Great Ouse" is copied verbatim from the source. So, too, is the complete sentence, "By the seventh century AD, the Great Denham area was located in the Saxon kingdom of Mercia" So is the sentence, "The Great Denham loop of the Ouse was therefore the front line between the two hostile kingdoms of Danelaw and Saxon England." The next bit is a very close paraphrase: "England was united in to centrally controlled kingdom. St James Church, close to the Great Denham – Biddenham border was originally constructed during this late Saxon/early Norman period." The source says: "England was eventually forged into one centrally controlled kingdom by the Norman conquest of 1066. St James Church, close to the Great Denham – Biddenham border has its origin during this late Saxon/early Norman period." I'm afraid this is not usable. Please remember that we cannot duplicate text from external sites that are not licensed compatibly unless we are using limited direct quotations in accordance with WP:NFC. Copying non-free text without quotation marks (or block quote) is not accordance with policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I hope to get more than I today and will take the liberty of just expanding the header with whatever I get to. :) Independent Association of Preparatory Schools and Independent Schools Association (UK) need rewriting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC) ←Found what looks to be (fairly conclusively) another case of somebody using your words. See Talk:John Bunyan Upper School for details. I'm not moving as quickly on this as I'd like; sorry! I'll try to get to the next letter before the end of the day. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I did the Ls. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Ms are in the table below. :) Just the one needs revision; I've addressed a few others myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Meoncross School needs a bit more revision. Remember that we have to rewrite it in our own language. Take, for example, the following text: "was located in hired premises." With the omission of one word, this is duplicating what is at that source. This is a striking phrase; there is no reason that it cannot be said in other language. It has sufficient creativity to warrant copyright protection, and it is especially problematic when other sentences follow so closely/ In the first paragraph, for example, your "All of the school moved to Burnt House in 1983, and the age range of Meoncross was extended to 16. A Kindergarten class opened at the school in 1991" is very near the source's "Our whole school was moved to this site in 1983 and at the same time, the age range was extended to 16. A two-form entry Kindergarten class was opened in 1991." Compare: "Our whole All of the school was moved to this site Burnt House in 1983 and at the same time, the age range of Meoncross was extended to 16. A two-form entry Kindergarten class was opened at the school in 1991. Rewriting requires restructuring. For example, you might say, "Meoncross School opened in 1953. After 11 years in a rental property, it relocated to Catisfield House in 1964. In 1969, the school opened a girls’ department in Burnt House in the village of Stubbington, near Fareham. This larger property became the home of the entire school in 1983. The school has also evolved to include a wider age-range. In 1983, it extended to include students to the age of 16, while in 1991 it added a Kindergarten." The facts are free, but the organization and language used to introduce them needs to be very different. What you are trying to avoid here is creating a "derivative work." According to 17 U.S.C. § 103(b), 17 U.S.C. § 101: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. Condensing what they have, even if you elaborate in some places, remains a derivative work. This is something that we should probably discuss. My hope is that by the time this review is finished, I can be confident that you have a good, firm grasp of how much revision is necessary to create an article that can be released under new license rather than a derivative work. This way, there will be no need to verify your future contributions. You are, again, obviously a good faith contributor, and you have done quite a bit of good work for Wikipedia. If you want further feedback on paraphrasing, please let me know. I'll be happy to bring in another administrator who works in this area to weigh in. My goal here is not to discourage you, create unnecessary work or throw barriers in your way, but simply to work through this problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. :) I'll try to take a look at it (and the other one) today, but am running hard to help catch up the e-mail queue for Wikipedia's permissions mailing list (sooo many days behind). I've almost finished the Ns, but froze halfway through when I found that out. :D I'll certainly update the box before logging off today and will wrap the Ns (barring disaster) today or tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC) ←Wanted to let you know that in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, you should attribute when you incorporate text from public domain sources. I've done so in the article Newry Cathedral. That text doesn't have to be removed, since it is not a copyright violation. (The source is too old, and copyright has lapsed.) You do need to be careful, though, since using a 1909 source has made it inaccurate. It says, "The seat of the cathedral, however, was transferred some two hundred years ago," but this text is already 100 years old. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Hi. :) This one is almost done, but I'm afraid you didn't really rewrite the last sentence much. Compare the article: "Building work began in March 2007, but was suspended because planning permission had not been granted by Medway council, the local planning authority." With the source: "Building work began in March 2007, but was suspended because planning permission had not yet been granted by the council." This is identical in structure and almost identical in language. You can stick a little closer to the source if you are paraphrasing within the text. You could, for example, say, "According to the BBC, the building that had begun in March 2007 had to be suspended pending permission from Medway council, the local planning authority." Without such inline attribution, you can't even stick that close. You might do something like this: "In March 2007, it was announced that the capacity of Rochester Prison was to be doubled to 700. This drew severe opposition from local residents. As of July 2008, the project—on which construction had briefly begun in March 2007—was on hold pending permission from Medway council, the local planning authority." There are a few things I see that need work in Pentillie. For example, take this text from the source: Sir John died, unexpectedly and in great agony, at the young age of 42 and James promptly married his widow Elizabeth.There were allegations that he had been rather too familiar with Elizabeth before the death of her husband and, locally at least, there was suspicion that Sir John might have been poisoned. This marriage greatly improved James’ wealth... Compare it to the article's sentence: "Sir John died suddenly, and Tillie promptly married his widow Elizabeth, greatly improving his wealth." This is pretty much an abridgment (a specific type of derivative work: "Sir John died, unexpectedly...and James promptly married his widow Elizabeth...greatly improved James’ wealth" To rewrite this in your own language, you probably need to jettison some of their phrases, something like: "Soon after the sudden death of Sir John, Tillie improved his fortunes by wedding his patron's widow." Another problematic passage I see is this: "...as a result, Pentillie was completely rebuilt in 1810, with the construction of an additional three new wings that formed a central courtyard to the west side of the original structure." This remains very close in structure and language to the the source, which says: "As a result, Pentillie was completely rebuilt with the addition of three wings to form a central courtyard on the west side of the original house." Leaving this note now. :) Off to look at the others. (By the way, New Hall should have been addressed. Looks like an admin closed the day's listing without noticing it!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Okay. We're making good progress. With everything else going on, I doubt I'll get to the Ss today (a daunting collection!) but will try to get to them soon. Promise! There is sooo not enough time in the day. :/ (By the way, I'm sure you noticed that I collapsed the above section. Just to let you know, if at any point you want to archive some of this, I certainly don't object. So far as I'm concerned each section is a separate conversation, and the older material is no longer needed.) Do you feel like you're getting a good grasp on how much is required for revision to avoid close paraphrasing? If you want to talk about any of it, let me know. I've had quite a bit of practice. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC) We are indeed coming to the end. :)Overall I see some very good rewriting, but you ask about your grasp of paraphrasing and I see an opportunity to talk a bit more about paraphrasing in Stamford American International School, which remains a little close in some places. Compare this passage: Its call for proposals for these additional schools was in response to an overwhelming demand for places; international schools were full and had long waiting lists. The shortage of places was so dire that it was a stumbling block for companies looking to bring in expatriate employees and their families.[3] There is no doubt that the original article follows this too closely: This was in response to an overwhelming demand for places in international schools. The shortage of places was so dire that it was a stumbling block for companies looking to bring in expatriate employees and their families to Singapore. The rewritten version, though, while much better, is also a bit closely paraphrased: This was in response to increasing demand for places in international schools in Singapore. The extreme shortage of international school places was said to be a problem for expatriate employees working for companies in Singapore and their families. Compare the original to the new: "in response to an overwhelming demand for places" → "in response to increasing demand for places" "shortage of places was so dire that it was a stumbling block for companies looking to bring in expatriate employees and their families." → "shortage of international school places was said to be a problem for expatriate employees working for companies in Singapore and their families." The first phrase is altered from the original by only two words. The second is more altered, but is basically rearranged: "shortage of places was...expatriate employees...and their families". If I encountered this in an article, I would not tag it for copyright problem, though I might if it were much longer with many more similar phrases. But it's best to rewrite it completely. Paring it down to the essence, I get: business wanted employees. Employees wanted international schools. Government wanted to make business happy. That gives me something like: "The government of Singapore made this move in part to address the need of businesses seeking to recruit employees from other countries. Potential hires were reluctant to take work where so few places existed in international schools to serve their children." Of course, there are other ways to write it. The important question, though, is this: would a bystander, reading what I've written, get the impression that I've copied the material from the source? If the answer is no, it's a good rewrite. It isn't that we're trying to hide where it came from; we source it after all. :) But the bystander viewpoint is one of the tests the US government employs to evaluate copyright problems...indeed, one of the most frequent. Now, the source: The Stamford American International School (SAIS) is envisioned to be a world class learning institution for children between 3 to 18 years of age. [4] The rewrite: Stamford American International School (SAIS) is is eventually projected to be be an institution for children aged 2 to 18. Good direction, but what you're trying to do is change, replace & cut words, which can be a real losing battle. You still have the same structure, which in itself can be a copyrightable element. Looking for the main points: The school is for kids in this age range. It isn't finished yet. It's very hard to rewrite a brief point like that, so I'm going to try to merge it with your next bit: "SAIS operates an United States style school curriculum, with incorporated international school style elements." I come up with: "The Stamford American International School (SAIS) will offer a United States style school curriculum with incorporated international school style elements to students between the ages of 3 and 18." Voila. Futurity & age, incorporated in an introductory sentence that is nothing like the original. :) Again, you're talking about a very brief passage there, so I'm not by any means suggesting this is a copyright violation. The problem is when you have multiple passages that follow closely in this way, as in aggregate they are more likely to rise to "substantial similarity." Is that at all helpful? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, most definitely. I'm reviewing Talk:St. Peter's Church, Bedford/Temp at this very moment. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Okay, this one does need some more rewriting. I can very much understand concerns about changing too much for fear of losing WP:V (this is not uncommon), but phrases like "it is thought the earliest church building would have been contructed out of wood rather than stone" are just too similar to the source "although their earliest building would probably have been of wood rather than stone." The next sentence, "The present church contains some of the oldest architectural remains in Bedford, the most ancient being the two great stones (monoliths) in the interior west wall of the tower and two carved stones which can be seen in the belfry" is a bit turned about in the article: "Two monoliths which are set in tower's interior west wall, and two carved stones set in the belfry are some of the oldest architectural remains to be found in the town of Bedford." But the copying is still obvious, including with the distinctive run: "some of the oldest architectural remains" Important points: Site used +1,000 years by Christians. Oldest churches wood, not stone. Architectural artifacts." I would recommend something like this: "The site has been used for Christian worship for more than a millennium. Although the current church is not that old and ruins of the earliest churches—probably build of wood—are no longer present, it does still house architectural artifacts among the oldest in Bedford." Yes, I've lost the detail, but loss of detail is almost inevitable if you are paraphrasing a single source. :/ Compare the next passage with the source: "The name 'de Merton' (from St Peter the apostle), relates to Merton Priory in Surrey. The Austin Canons who founded and operated Merton Priory held the advowson of the church, and were its patrons. After the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the patronage of St. Peter's appears to have been given over to the English Crown." First, I think your "from St. Peter the apostle" is a misunderstanding. It says, "which follows the name of the apostle St Peter"--and it does: The Parish Church of St Peter de Merton. Yup; the name of St. Peter, followed by de Merton. :) This one also follows a bit closely, as the details and some of the language follow right along with the source. The basic points: Merton Priory's founders had the advowson of St. Peter's until the monasteries dissolved and the Crown got patronage. I might rewrite this, At one time, appointments within the church were made by the Augustinian Canons who had founded Merton Priory in Surrey. Their connection persists in the name 'de Merton' even though the English Crown took over patronage of St Peter after the Dissolution of the Monasteries of the 16th century. Other passages of concern: "The rubble and cement tower of the church (which was constructed in Saxon times), has seen off various storms, fires and unsympathetic restorations in the intervening years", heavily drawn from "The tower, built of rubble and cement, has survived storm, fires and restoration since Saxon times." "Notable examples of Saxon architecture in the church include an arch over the organ console and a small doorway above that arch which are set in the belfry offer's east wall," which is still a bit close to "the arch over the organ console and the small doorway above the arch in the east wall of the belfry offer good examples of Saxon architecture." It seems that you have even mistaken "offer" as a noun (the belfry offer), when in context of the original it seems to be a verb (offer good examples). The article says, "The most notable example of Norman work in the church building is an exterior doorway arch, found in the south porch. This arch was originally from St Peter de Dunstable Church in Bedford, which closed in 1545. The porch in which the arch is set was built in 1902, with a statue of St Peter added in 1903." The source says, "However the best example of Norman work is the exterior doorway arch in the south porch. This arch belonged originally to another Bedford church, St Peter de Dunstable which was closed in 1545. The porch which now protects it was added in 1902 and the statue of St Peter placed in the porch the following year." This also follows very closely, both in language and structure. Article: extensive restoration work and considerable enlargement; source: "extensive restoration work in St Peter's, but also considerable enlargement." Article: "When a neighbouring parish was amalgamated with St Peter's in 1974, The church was dedicated to a second saint, Cuthbert of Lindisfarne. The former parish church of St Cuthbert is now the Roman Catholic Polish Church of Sacred Heart of Jesus & St Cuthbert." Source: "The dedication of the parish to a second saint, Cuthbert of Lindisfarne, came about when the neighbouring parish of St Cuthbert was amalgamated with St Peter's in 1974. The former parish church of St Cuthbert...is now used for worship by the Polish Roman Catholic community." The language here seems largely to have been moved about. I know that rewriting is not quick. Just to let you know, I've been working on this note since I left you the last--what's that, almost an hour? It is time consuming, and the fewer sources you have, the more difficult it is. :/ (It's a relative piece of cake to take a fact from one source and a fact from another and merge them into a whole new sentence.) Why don't you see about revising some of this one and then take a look at Talk:St. Paul's Church, Bedford/Temp to see if you think it needs more work? (And you are welcome to use any of the language I suggest above if it pleases you without attribution...or not if you'd rather come up with your own. :)) If you have questions or want to discuss particulars, please feel free to let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC) ←Okay, let's talk about the first sentence. "Although a Collegiate church is recorded on this site in 1066, the present church was first constucted in the early 13th century, however an Early English south porch is all that remains visible from this time." The source says, "There was a church on the site by 1066.... The present church was started in the first part of the 13th century. ...With numerous alterations little remains visible from this period apart from the South porch." I'm afraid this follows too closely. Although you've cut some detail, what you've got there is basically an abridgment of the source. It's the same basic structure with some of the same language, particularly in the last bit. Taking your text: "the present church was started first constucted in the first part of the early 13th century, however an Early English south porch is all that remains visible from this period time." Early 20th century work to the church includes the Rood screen (designed by George Frederick Bodley), the English Altar and altar rails (designed by the Bromsgrove Guild), and restoration work to the Trinity Chapel (instituted by C. E. Mallows). During the Second World War (from 1941), the BBC used the church to broadcast the Daily Service. This led to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York saying mass together at St. Paul's in a live broadcast. The Roman Catholic Cardinal Arthur Hinsley also preached here during this time (See Corn Exchange, Bedford). The church underwent another major round of restoration work and improvements from the mid 1970s. The work culminated with the addition of two engraved glass doors in 1982. I believe the last paragraph of that section may also follow somewhat too closely: During the Second World War (from 1941), the BBC used the church to broadcast the Daily Service. This led to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York saying mass together at St. Paul's in a live broadcast. The Roman Catholic Cardinal Arthur Hinsley also preached here during this time (See Corn Exchange, Bedford). The church underwent another major round of restoration work and improvements from the mid 1970s. The work culminated with the addition of two engraved glass doors in 1982 The source says: Throughout the second World War from 1941 onwards, St Paul's was used by the BBC for the broadcasting of the Daily Service. During that time, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York celebrated the Eucharist together in a live broadcast and the Roman Catholic Cardinal Hinsley preached here.... From the mid 1970s restoration and improvements were made, culminating in 1982 with the addition of two doors at the west end designed by the well-known glass engraver, David Peace. Remember, the best approach here is not to just cut out some words and alter or add a few (which leaves you with stuff like "The Roman Catholic Cardinal Arthur Hinsley also preached here during this time", a thin alteration of "the Roman Catholic Cardinal Hinsley preached here". It's best to comprehend the section and overhaul it completely. You might wind up with something more like: Many live broadcasts took place from the church between 1941 and the end of World War II. On one event, a joint mass was celebrated by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, but throughout the period Daily Services were broadcast regularly from the church by the BBC. The church was also home to a service officiated by Roman Catholic Cardinal Arthur Hinsley. Later in the 20th century, from the 1970s through 1982, the church was restored and otherwise improved. Again, you are free to use that if you want, but I'm not offering it up as a "do it my way or else!" kind of thing. It's really just meant to illustrate my suggestions. Other than these two sections, the revision seems good to me. As we are getting very close to the end of the articles in question, I would like to nail this down so that we can move forward without concerns for future articles. I think you are definitely doing better with rewriting, and these articles (which you indicated were particularly challenging) are good opportunities to address any lingering concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs European University Association University of Northampton (thirteenth century) Cartmel Polytechnic Ushaw College Queen's Medical Centre Wells Felmersham Certificate in Education White Rose University Consortium Sunday Times University of the Year Russell Combined Universities in Cornwall Dundry Down 11 Downing Street Pen Hill University College Scarborough Applied science Institute

Cleanup Keele University Preston Bachelor of Science Merge EHealth Sports science Engineering management Add Sources Russell Group Robbins Report Tremough Wikify Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council The Upper Hand Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School Expand University of Ulster Greenfield, Greater Manchester Queen Mary, University of London

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bleaney. You have new messages at Computerjoe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Computerjoe's talk 07:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thames Valley University

disagree here. Which of the 4 TVU campuses is the "main" one and where's your source? TVU has no "main campus", it has 2 in London (Ealing and Brentford) and 2 in Berkshire (Reading and Slough, the latter of which is about to close in 2010). Neither campus is a "main" campus, they all have their faculties which operate separately, e.g, the London College of Music and Media at the Ealing campus while the Nursing school operates from Brentford. Basically, it should be listed as a London university. - filelakeshoe 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Coords

First, excellent work spotting the Norfolk error. My very bad :).

I tend to use multimap to find coords, mainly 'cos I'm concerned with the UK and multimap offer an Ordnance Survey map layer, which tends to have the detail I'm after. I'll tend to search for postcodes (i.e. get a postcode from the school website, put it into multimap's search box) if I'm dealing with a school of college. (And then play around in the OS or aerial view until I'm happy that I've found the location). Direct search by name can be done for villages, and are (mostly) successful. Other buildings and structures can normally be tracked down from the article description. Parishes can be roughly determined from finding the constituent villages/districts, if the article specifies these. For larger entities such as a parish, we're interested in a rough centre point.

Having found your entity, a right click on the entity and use of "Move map to here" produces coords in DMS or decimal at the bottom right of the multimap screen. If the entity is quite large (e.g. a forest) I'll use DMS. If I want to ensure the arrow points exactly to a building, I'll use decimal, since (I forget) seconds in DMS at UK latitudes are about 30 metres, meaning the arrow can entirely miss the building.

There's only a little voodoo associated with the {{coord}} template, best understood by checking out the documentation and existing uses of coord - e.g. check out my contributions history, since I list for format of coord used in each article I've coorded. The type: parameter essentially drives scaling of the map. The region:GB parameter causes the geohack tool to show UK-only maps. The dim: parameter allows some more control over the size of map shown on the screen, useful for parishes, districts, local authorities etc, where we're trying to bound the actual shape within the rectangle of the map window.

Umm. Hope that's enough of a flavour. I'd be eternally grateful for more input to the backlog of articles listed from Category talk:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data. If you want anymore input from me, give me a shout. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what's happening, but presume it is at your end / a glitch with the geohack conversion to the map you used. On my machine the coords point to a Great Denham just west of Bedford, via multimap or google.

Cowlidge is 52.16161N 0.50417E. My (second) Great Denham coords were 52.1386N 0.50966W ... so whatever is happening is connected with reflection in the meridian. The history shows that I did point to the West, not the East; and AFAIK all Suffolk coords are in the East.

Which map were you using to view the coords, and was it based in a click-through of the coords, or a by-hand check? Anyway, I've updated the coord after deciding I was pointing to Biddenham rather than Great Denham.

I'm sure we'll get there in the end. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bleaney

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the EastEnders WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of EastEnders.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Please participate in any of our parent WikiProjects that might interest you.
• The project has a bimonthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered in its entirety, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every EastEnders-related article in Wikipedia.
• Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 

Cathedral maps in info boxes

I hate those cathedral boxes!

Please note: whenever you make an info box longer, it forces down any picture that is below it. If the pic is fixed within a section, rather than floating, then all the text that is below it also gets forced down This can make a gap in the text that is as deep as the object that you have just inserted, in the case of a map, the gap you create can be 2 inches deep, or more, if as in the case of Birmingham, you put the map in at a large size. The fact that text becomes split or orphaned from its heading is usually only apparent if your screen is wide format. If you are viewing on a narrow screen, then there may appear to be plenty of extra room.

If you have added these maps to a number of other cathedrals that I don't happen to be watching, then someone will need to do the necessary adjustments. I have been removing surplus lists of staff, which are quite unnecessary in the info box; they just take up rooom that is useful for other things. Amandajm (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at worcester. Making the map wider than the pic above it both looks ugly and accentuates the problem. Amandajm (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have left Winchester Cathedral just as it is, because the layout is a stuff-up, even when viewed on a narrow screen. You can see the problem. I'll get back and rearrange it later. Amandajm (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maps

User:Charlesdrakew has just removed the map from Chichester Cathedral with the comment that anyone who wants to know its location will simply click the link to Chichester. How clever of him to point this out! Now, if the map showed the precise location of each cathedral in its town, then there would be a case to keep them. But it doesn't. So there's really no point. The maps simply make an already over-large box unnecessarily larger. There is not point in doubling up on info that is (or should be) already satisfactorily dealt with on the town's page in each case. Amandajm (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Re the "section for maps" in info boxes. I am aware that the facility is there. There is also a place for every last single employee of the cathedral and every single possible dimension. It is all too much. There has been considerable dispute over the boxes. The three headings, one entitled "Basic information" are fairly crass. The Church info box is actually better than the cathedral info box.

The Wikipedia links work effectively for things like location. Every Cathedral has the city name as part of its title. If you can find the city, then you don't need a map of the county showing where the city is that the cathedral is located in. The map tells you nothing very useful except that the cathedral is in a particular town in a particular county, but you know that anyway. There is no need to double up on basic stuff that can be found out by clicking on the town.

The question is, what is sacrificed for the sake of the map? We are dealing here with England's most historically and architecturally significant buildings. A big map and a long list of present clergy appointments means that there is no room for an historic image, (unless it is sandwiching the text down the left side) and often no room for a really good architectural image. At every single cathedral the writer of the article has to chose what pictures can be left out. It's a difficult choice, because ever single English cathedral is so varied in its architecture and so full of treasures (stained glass, woodcarving, stone carving, metalwork, modern sculpture, vestments, books, documents, religious vessels).

I would rather do away with cathedral info-boxes altogether because they have very little use. All the key information is contained in the first paragraph of the introduction (or should be, if the article is reasonably well written). The information boxes are problematic and often misleading when it comes to the architecture. In the case of Winchester Cathedral for example, I have here a list of dates ranging from the 7th century to 1912, and there has been a more recent restoration. Trying to put a definitive date in the info box is meaningless. Likewise there is a list of ten architects who built various parts of Winchester Cathedral, but the architects of three important sections, including the west front, are unknown. I see no point in a list of people called Hugh Mason and William of Winchester etc. No-one knows who they are. Put in context, they are relevant: eg. "The crypt and transepts were built by Hugh Mason between 1079-93" (most of the master builders were called John, William, Richard or Hugh Mason and many of the others were called William of Winchester, John of Gloucester or Jeffrey of Southwell. None-the-less, because there are spaces for all this stuff in that info box, anyone could add a long lists of these master builders and insist it was justified, even though it informs the reader of virtually nothing.)

What we have here is a balancing act concerning the relative importance. As I see it, cathedral-specific information belongs on the cathedral's specific site. There are very few places on Wikipedia to put a photo of the glorious vault of Wnchester's nave, except the Winchester cathedral article. If we have to chose between the vault and the map, or the side view showing the whole 560 foot length and the map, or the south transept and the map, or the west window full of medieval glass and the map, or the reredos and the map, or the crypt statue and the map, or the magnificent Restoration altar rails and the map, then in every single case the pictorial information is of greater significance than the map, simply because one only has to click Winchester to find the map, exactly where one would expect it to be. As you can see, a number of other contributors to cathedral articles feel exactly the same way about it.

Amandajm (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! As for being a purist and wanting to fill the spaces, the info boxes were designed by an editor with whom I argued at the time that the long list of info fields was counterproductive, but he did it anyway. I do feel like removing the whole lot, but someone will put them back. Amandajm (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider...

Would you consider helping with new community website for Shortstown village, which I will be starting within next few weeks? Shortstown is going downhill at the moment and I just want to give something to people to identify themselfs with. Therefore I'm looking for volonteers whos firt language is english ( As mine isn't) to help me out build this community portal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraculos (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Many thanks for coming back to me. I don't know how to send a message through wikipedia. If you could email me at peter * mycorp * co * uk please and delete this post.

Regards, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraculos (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

undoing edits

Hi, I just noticed you're string of undoing edits at Derrick Evans. In future instead of undoing each one separately, you'll find it much easier and quicker to just edit the revision before the changes you want to undo and then save that. See Help:Reverting#Manual reverting for instructions if you're not sure how. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Royal Northern College of Music

Thanks for your message. AIUI, the RNCM does indeed have the power to award its own degrees, see this list of "All those institutions or bodies, including universities, which have their own degree awarding powers." Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

EastEnders characters

Hi, I thought you might like to know, since you were the one who originally brought it up on my talk page, that at WP:EASTENDERS we finally decided to change our lists of minor characters to lists of all characters, thus eliminating the problem of knowing who is minor and who is major! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)