User talk:Keith D/Archive 15

East Riding of Yorkshire
As it's raining, I've been giving this a "good looking at"! I can see that the whole article needs to be restructured as per WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. The history section is mostly administrative history of the Riding. Can we broaden this to be about the area as the Wolds have a lot to offer e.g.Arras culture. Maybe we could revise the ToDo list on the talk page as a start?--Harkey (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was looking at the RD/UD/RSD/Wapentakes trying to at least create the articles but got diverted by the POV and edit wars on Edward McMillan-Scott. I came to the conclusion that the section was confusing and needed to cover things better. May be the detail could go in a History of the East Riding of Yorkshire article. I had thought of some of those pink maps one showing the existing overlaying the original boundaries, one showing the original 1894 RD/UD boundaries and one showing the 1935 RD/UD boundaries which may help to visualise the situation.


 * Overall there needs to be some distinction between the current county and the historic county as the article is covering both which will probably be a hard job.


 * It would be worth revising the to-do list, I have always thought that it was out of date especially the bit about replacing the list of places with categories and we currently have a combined Yorkshire place list. Having pointers will direct people to what needs doing though not may editors seem interested in the area. Keith D (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a rough sort of map of East Yorkshire by putting new boundaries over old. Maybe we could add some sort of Key in a column or something at the side? We're not supposed to write on the map, it can't be understood in other languages.Blue is for bits removed, red is bits added, as far as I can see!! Just got your message. Will look over sandbox article after dinner. Just singed the meat!!--Harkey (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the map, I have put it in the history article for now. Keith D (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Now that harvesting is just about done, I have been looking again at the East Riding article; in particular the Demographics section. Do you know whether there are any updated statistics for the towns mentioned, please? I have sourced a few juicy (2007) stats for the whole Riding but they sit a bit uncomfortably with the 2001 stats for Bridlington, Goole, etc.--Harkey (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again, paper boy has been, I have still got 4 days worth of watchlist to get through before I am back to productive work, surprising the number of vandal edits still present, problems caused by page moves and new comers. To answer your question there is the overall county level stats here which are probably worth using. For individual ward level I guess, but have not downloaded the zip files to investigate further the detail given, are listed on this page. Hopefully that will give you what you are looking for. By the way did you spot my note on the project page about popular pages, well the East Riding page is our 132nd most popular page with 2,612 views or 237 per day. Keith D (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, just what I was looking for. Better get on with it!! Can't disappoint 237 a day. Glad the paper boy responded, too. I noticed that you were slogging away at your watchlist. It must have been really frustrating when your hardware went down as well. I've been suffering home wireless network cuts when tractors go by (and that's been quite often since July). I think it could be to do with the sophisticated GPS systems they all have now. Or maybe just plain old faulty spark plugs!!--Harkey (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed that there were more hospitals when I was researching yesterday. And well remember from my childhood that a field just outside Bridlington had a hoarding up for years and years saying it was to be the site of the new hospital. There must be more amateur sport as well in some of the towns. There is a lot still to do. I got distracted by the Derwent Arms prod. I hate to see one go down.--Harkey (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you note. I found this earlier but have no way of knowing which clubs/teams are more/less worth mentioning etc., without googling each of them for a news item. Also some are sure to be left out of the list. BTW I had a look at the problem articles that you mentioned. Not much I could do for the recording studio but added refs on one and tried to get over copyright on the other.--Harkey (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I had to compromise a bit on population stats as 2007 mid year estimates refer to wards and article refers to parishes.--Harkey (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sport and leisure is a good idea. I thought about including a couple of airfields as I was driving back from Beverley and passed one today. Can we ( are we allowed to?) include a See also to Category:Villages in the East Riding of Yorkshire and do you know how complete it might be? I know the present village section will need to be turned into text at some point. The villages included seem to be a fairly random selection!--Harkey (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the stats update. I will pick up on it tomorrow. I haven't forgotten climate either - just too idle to do the sums at the moment.--Harkey (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (P.S.That's what a wild day in Beverley does for me!!)--Harkey (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep nattering at you. I just need to know whether you think the list of villages in the village section is a fairly representative selection before I try to turn it into some sort of prose. Are there any howling omissions? Thanks.--Harkey (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, just wish I could turn of the message prompt from AWB as I can handle it in Firefox rather than IE starting up. I would remove Riplingham as only a hamlet and possibly add Aldbrough, Anlaby, Skirlaugh and Snaith. Though you could select a whole list of places but I think that covers the towns and the large villages. I have thought of splitting the places in Yorkshire as Jza84 suggested last year but not got round to doing any thing about. Keith D (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On places of interest I doubt that Aire and Calder Navigation should be present as it is in West Yorkshire apart from where it hits the river at Airmyn though Goole may have some claim to it. May be could put in Beverley Beck in place of it though it is a fairly short canal. Keith D (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was a bit dubious about it too. I think it was probably added by a canal buff ages ago. As you say, Goole could lay claim to it and that's why it got left in. I'll revise it next time. --Harkey (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Timeshare directive
Is this it?--Harkey (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

University of Warwick, Warwick Business School
I think that the Warwick Business School should be included into the article of the University of Warwick, and should be linked to the other wikipedia article on the Warwick Business School. If the business school is not included than certainly the medical school should not be included which is the least known department. For example the article about upenn, the business school is explicitely mentioned as particularly known, as Wharton is the most famous department at upenn and other departments are not very known abroad. The same is with Warwick, the business school is the largest and most well known department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.69.66 (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it needs a paragraph adding, as I noted in my edit summary when adding the wikilinks to the article in the instances that I found already in the article. Unfortunately I do not know enough to put anything into the article that would be useful and neutral. It needs someone with some knowledge of the school to put in some suitable text. Keith D (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyedits to your sandbox
I made a few minor copyedits to the article to make some points clearer. Hope this is OK. As I too have little previous knowledge of the chap, I think the article is really quite neutral now.--Harkey (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks I will take a look in a bit, I hope you picked up on the problem raised by another user, as thinking about it I notice that the sentence really could be read a number of ways. Keith D (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith, Yes, I picked up on it but I thought that the more bland it was the less likely it was to be a magnet for POV edits. "Extremist" is a strong word and could mean either right or left wing. "Sleeping dogs" and all that!!--Harkey (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have just put on a possible change on the talk page as it is unclear and ambiguous as it stands. Though the word extreme may or may not need to be present. Is that wording better? Keith D (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Leeds City Region Partnership
Hi Keith. I don't know if you've spotted it yet, but Yaunchy has suddenly reappeared and moved the article back to the title of Leeds City Region, without consensus. I have not taken any action to revert his edit in the event of suggestions of edit warring. In view of his contribution history/edit summaries I am also wondering if the anon IP 90.212.254.251 is also his. Richard Harvey (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No have not got there yet. Keith D (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just got to it. I have reverted out the page move & the changes to the article as discussion on the scope/purpose of the page is underway at the talk page. I would think that we do not really need one on the region as it will mainly be a repetition of other place articles and that we should concentrate on the partnership which will not be covered elsewhere. But then we shall see what happens, my guess is the same thing thae happened to Leeds with lots of IP or the single purpose editors wading in. Keith D (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keith, We now seem to have a newly registered editor, who has done a redirect on the Leeds City Region Partnership article to 'Leeds City Region, even though Harkey is working on the new Leeds City Region article. So I have just reverted that edit. Checking his contributions I note he has also created a new article:- Leeds city region, which is being populated from the 'LCRP' article, which I have not touched. His IP is 91.105.40.148. He appears to be operating through an Orange / Wanadoo IP. As it seems odd for someone to come on purely with the purpose of editing that article I'm wondering if the IP is a 'Sockpuppet.' Would it be worth protecting the 'LCRP' article untill thibks are sorted out, as its getting rather confusing? Richard Harvey (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have sorted out the cut & paste moves and put the histories back together, I think. I have protected the Leeds City Region article for now. Not into looking at the IP addresses but exactly the same thing happened over the Leeds/City of Leeds debate with IPs and newly registered users springing up all over the place. My guess is that there is one person attempting to promote Leeds at all costs. Keith D (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I was getting disorientated with all the to-ing and fro-ing.--Harkey (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hull City A.F.C.
Indeed, although looking at the OS squad list, it seems quite distorted; multiple players have been assigned to one number. I suspect the numbers have been updated for the new season but something's gone wrong in updating the website. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Supertram (Sheffield)
Keith,

what is your issue with the tone of the comment about cycling ?

It isn't rude to the tram company or any organisation. As the article stands, without this piece the article takes an approach that is largely technical but not completely so - it also paints the picture of a entirely positive system with no disadvantages for anyone. That does not present a fair picture. In the points I am making about the consequences for cyclists I am attempting to redress the balance a little from an article that as it stands is pure promotion of the system to one that is more balanced and fair to all stakeholders.

If you can demonstrate your point about tone by changing the text I have supplied while retaining its meaning please do do. I watch with interest.

andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy422001 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The main problem as I see it it appears to be written from a personal perspective and includes non-encyclopaedic phrases such as "sad fact", "having good points and bad points" and "applauded". Also the whole section is unreferenced where is the reliable sources for this information?
 * As an example you could put something like "Folding bicycles, if bagged, can to be carried on the Supertram while other types of bicycle are prohibited". Keith D (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Keith - thankyou for clarifying. As I've written it now there much less emotive slant on this content. It is however necessary to shift the balance slightly. For example, your suggestion "Folding bicycles, if bagged, can to be carried on the Supertram while other types of bicycle are prohibited" *is* actually still biased - no phrase can be not biased. Compare with "Bicycles cannot be carried on the tram unless they are both folding and bagged" - the emphasis is different in each. Its important that the balance is fair because some groups are disenfranchised - for example poorer people do not generally have folding bikes because they are more expensive - it *isn't* unbiased to assume that allowing folding bikes solves the problem. Also, it generally is not possible to evidence *everything* - some things are often left unevidenced because they are self-evidently true. There is solid evidence behind all of the points made and I am in process of assembling it - though I *do* wonder how much one really needs to evidence these obvious things. In academic papers one evidences only things that are controversial and not widely accepted - everything I have written is widely accepted in cycle-campaigning circles in Sheffield as true and supported in many reports and articles.

andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy422001 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I notice that the section was restructure and then removed by other editors since it was re-added so unsure of the state of this now. The problem with referencing is that some people want referencing for things which are blatantly obvious as evidenced by the next section on this talk page where an editor is wanting a cite for nearby villages & what parliamentary constituency a place is in. Keith D (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hood Green
Hi, You comment " the article is tagged and it is not controversia)".  It's certainly tagged but any non-sourced material may be challenged.  Since you wish to retain the 'article' as-is could you please add sources?  Regards Trilobyte fossil (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But I would have expected you to follow "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." before removing basic information which is clearly non-controversial and obvious in nature. Keith D (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding that. I could certainly have tried harder but quickly became bored bored bored with "Robin Hood green hats" and suchlike.  The article is not controversial but could, for all I or anyon else knows, be totally wrong.  All that's readily verifiable is that "Hood Green in the hinterland to the Pennines" but at least that's a step in the right direction.  Trilobyte fossil (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just added an infobox with the info that is there and on the co-ordinate link. Keith D (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I've taken the tag off. Thanks.  Trilobyte fossil (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help.
Keith,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my request for support. You will recall, that I was proud to be mentioned within an article on Coventry (and as you mentioned, Woodlands School) but that the link went to an American chap of the same name.

I should very much like to take up your kind offer of help in having my biography published on Wikipedia. I clearly agree that it should not be written by myself and that it all needs verification. I would be more than happy to support this and supply any information you require.

I have a webpage which is something of a Curiculum Vitae. The link is

I can supply a number of articles written about me in magazines and papers if you would like them to help verify imformation.

I also have a considerable number of photo's too.

Once again, thank you Keith for your kind offer of support. I really appreciate it. Very best regards, Kevin 213.166.17.10 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

kevin.reilly@hants.gov.uk


 * I think that you may struggle to pass notability from a quick glance as I was expecting some fencing achievements from the inclusion in the Coventry page. Not sure on fencing competitions but the general inclusion for sports people is "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." May be you could point me at the sources and especially the fencing achievements. Thanks Keith D (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

York
Gotcha!! Some you win, some you lose.--Harkey (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Great news, especially from one of the more strict reviewers I have had, now for East Riding of Yorkshire! Keith D (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, can you point me at info on copyright for books. I have a geology book on East Yorkshire published in 1947.The topography maps could be used as base maps if they're out of copyright. The shape of the hills, rivers and coastline don't change. Mind you, Holderness!!--Harkey (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We already have a couple of articles on lost villages from Holderness that I remember adding co-ordinates to. I doubt that it will be out of copyright as it is 70 years after death of author for UK, though unsure if wiki goes under US law. For general book copyright I found The Online Books Page and wiki info Copyrights. Keith D (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Info was right there on the Copyrights page. It's an old HMSO (Geological Survey) publication so copyright ends after 50 years.--Harkey (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good old HMSO! While thinking of ERoY I think I have created stubs for all of the missing Rural District articles. What do you think about Urban Districts should we just point to the settlement article which would probably the best place to cover them? Keith D (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I should think the settlement articles would suffice.Details can then be added re their status as UD if it's not already there. I know you've already done a lot in the infoboxes.--Harkey (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Catterick ( who signs as "A Merry old sole)
I have just put an indefinite block on this account for trolling. You views on this block would be welcome at ANI Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 08:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Green
You have undone my edit about Mark's death on 2nd August. I can assure you that the information is correct as I heard the news from an assistant at his Retirement Home. Mark was an old friend of mine, the connection being via the 24th Lancers, of which he was Padre during WWII. Mark's funeral is on 9th September. Sincerely Steve Pannell.92.2.181.29 (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but it was reverted as no reliable source was added with the information that could be used to verify the information. You need to supply a reference for the information from some published source so that we know it is true. May be there is some obituary or similar in a newspaper that could be used. Keith D (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WJ Groundwater Limited
Hi, Keith D, I have been in contact with a user that's working on Yorkshire articles but one of his articles was deleted some time back (not sure when) and wants to do some work on it in his sandbox. I have now discovered that only admins can retrieve deleted pages so I was wandering if you could help. It is called WJ Groundwater Limited. 95jb14 (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I can see it it was deleted as spam advertising, where do you want it restoring to? Keith D (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you could create this page and paste it here it would be much appreciated: User:95jb14/sandbox_1. Thanks, 95jb14 (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I have put a copy there, minus the banner boxes to keep it out of the categories. Suggest you use one of the standard infobox templates rather than what is present at the moment. Keith D (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. 95jb14 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Richmondshire
Hi Keith, I intend to expand the history section a lot more and clarify the difference between the local government district and the Honour. I went over to Richmond last Friday to get a couple of the books that are mentioned in the list. (Then spent most of Saturday reading them!) I think the best thing to do with the references section for now is to hide the second part, i.e. the list of books, until I have done a bit more research, etc. Then, as I add text, I will convert them into inline citations and delete them from the list or add them as further reading. A couple are a bit erm... esoteric, to say the least.--Harkey (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to get my head round Richmond, Richmondshire, Richmond Castle, Earl of Richmond and Duke of Richmond. Not to mention a redirect from Honour of Richmond to Earl of Richmond. There is a bit of duplication going on here. I think we might be as well keeping Richmondshire as the current local government area and making an article about the Honour of Richmond (the historic territory) and cutting out the redirect then having a See also or two in the articles. How say you?--Harkey (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the talk page and earlier versions of Honour of Richmond, there looks to be some dispute over this and of it being a hoax. The page is protected by Deacon of Pndapetzim so will need to drop them a note if you go down the route of recreation. May be a good person to help as seems to have a PhD in Mediaeval History and has FA involvement. May be Richmondshire should be the current district with just a short history section for background with a main to another article. We could use History of Richmondshire but Honour of Richmond could be a place for it as that phrase needs explaining as it is used in the Yorkshire page without explainable. Not much use I am afraid here over details. Keith D (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I had better work at the article in a sandbox first as I can see why it has been protected. There must be something about the area that attracts them!!--Harkey (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a start on the revised Honour Of Richmond article in my sandbox and dropped a note at User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim. However there seems to be some debate on his talk page about whether he has ceased to edit on Wikipedia as he has deleted his user page. Can you throw any light on the situation?--Harkey (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure, they were active after deleting their user page (10 August) until 13 August and then all has gone quiet. I see no reports of a problem so may be it is just a break. Keith D (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith.--Harkey (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Tees Valley Metro
Hi, Thanks for your recent edits to this article, I wasn't aware of the MoS guidelines on ordinals in dates (which seems odd to me but not going to argue), specifying the formats if the ref' is a pdf and non-breaking spaces. You did though make a mistake with changing the punctuation to after the citation, so I'll be restoring the correct formatting for those changes. Thanks for the interest though. --NicholasAdams (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I cannot find an obvious problem with the edits apart from a missing full stop that I have just noticed. I thought that I moved the citation to follow the punctuation mark as per MOS:PAIC. If there is a problem and it is not to the MOS then please correct. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Tongue End
>Hi, thanks for correcting my error on the project for Tongue End‎.
 * All fine. I thought it was a bot run mad.  Is there a Tongue End in Yorkshire? Brunnian (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. It was me forgetting to select the project, I have Yorkshire as the default so if I do not change it it will add the Yorkshire template. Keith D (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I've about done with Lincolnshire Gate, Tongue End, Pode Hole, Hop Pole, High Dyke, Lincolnshire, Dyke and Twenty for now.  Loads more red places on the lincolnshire list.  The deepings look like they could all do with infoboxes, mind. Brunnian (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Market Deeping
Why in God's name did you revert my edit to the Market Deeping article? It's right there in the summary - "prove me wrong". Find more than one notable person and then the article can refer to "notable people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.99.65 (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We generally use plural regardless of the number for several things including this, it reads better and gives the opportunity for more to be added. Bet you have no reliable source to say that there is only 1. Keith D (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

September Newsletter
As its the "silly season", how about somthing on Yorkshire seaside resorts? Lots of people will be visiting them over the August Bank Holiday. Is there a list or category? Is there a category on Commons for photos and maps, etc? Just a thought!--Harkey (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, brain ticking!! Just been trying to pull Cuthbert Brodrick back from extinction. Working on Leeds City Region in my sandbox if your wondering why I've gone a bit quiet lately--Harkey (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I've put a first draft article into the Newsletter. As usual, feel free to amend etc.--Harkey (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have alerted the paper lad but no joy, as yet.--Harkey (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had spotted the note you left and the paper boy's response. Still catching up on watchlist changes, just hit September, after the extended break due to the death of the PC power supply following a power cut. Keith D (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Altofts
I have read your comment on its talk page and have updated the page to follow its requests. Is it enough to merit a C-class article?-- OsirisV (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at how to write about settlements to see how to layout UK settlement articles for next steps on this article. Keith D (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln Christ's Hospital School
I've already added my thoughts to the relevant talk page, but noticed that you have been active on the page and thought I would run this past you. As far as I can see, a large list of alumni has been added as vandalism with no evidence as support. I've already deleted Tom Heaton because his inclusion is absolute nonsense. I'm also confused about the inclusion of a Nobel prize winner, which I thought I might have heard of during my time at the school. What action would you recommend? 86.135.81.220 (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the whole page is that there are no references at all which is not very helpful. The page is tagged already so that is not going to help either. Probably the next step is to try and validate each of the entries with reliable references and the ones that cannot be validated removed but that will take some time and effort from some one with access to records etc. Keith D (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I can hardly believe that any of this page is notable. Many of the alumni are not even notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, so I am quite surprised to find them on the Alumni list. The Old Lincolnians link at the bottom of the page is fine, except for the fact that it is not linked in with the article at all. I can almost guarentee that the Nobel Prize winner is false, since I attended the school for seven years and they would almost certainly have wheeled out that achievement at any oppurtunity, and yet I have never heard of any such thing. Also, I think some of the awards at the bottom of the page would struggle to be called notable 86.135.81.220 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Hull City A.F.C.
As you are one of the principle contributors to this article, I wanted to be sure you were aware that Hull City A.F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing, POV, poor use of English and editing and edit warring
This is regarding Template:Kosovo-note and user User:Tadija. Apparently there is a consensus to have the Template written in such a way, which clearly uses POV wording and a poor use of the English language. His version says that Kosovo is "unrecognized by 130 UN member states". This is a poor use of English and is misleading. Kosovo is not "unrecognised" it is non-recognised by 130 countries. Unrecognised implies that they used to recognise and that recognition has since been withdrawn. The wording is generally POV as it explicitly say how many countries don't recognise Kosovo before saying how many do, no where else on wiki does that. Mentioning of the Republic of China has also been removed. All this is POV INHO. There is an apparent consensus for this on the talk page, but as you can see he has canvassed to pro Serb users who all supported his consensus, see here: Also on the discussion page on the Kosovo note, Cinema C unilaterally declared the discussion over, despite objection to canvassing. Cinema C is one of the users Tadija canvassed to. If you look at the template history, he has continued reverting my edits even though I have explained to him on his talk page. I have also warned him about the 3RR. For some reason after I posted a warning on his talkpage regarding the 3RR, he posted one on mine even though I obviously know the rules of 3RR since I just posted it on his page. Is this trolling? Can you please give your judgement regarding the talkpage consensus. Hopefully you will see it is not neutral and that canvassing has been biased. Could you also monitor a new consensus building please to maintain neutrality and to stop canvassing please. Regards IJA (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Andrija.b diff,
 * User:Vanjagenije diff,
 * User:Pagliaccioknows diff,
 * User:Nikola Smolenski diff,
 * User:Cinéma C diff.
 * May be a little slow at getting round to looking at this as I have been away for over a week and only just back in to looking over things since I was last around. Keith D (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, welcome back. Anyway get round to it in your own time mate, I don't need to you to reslove it now, besides it is late just gone past mid-night. But sooner would be better than later. Regards IJA (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Things seem to have settled down on this now. Is there still a problem that needs to be looked at? Keith D (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2009
Delivered September 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 08:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit to BBC Weather page????
I got a message I apparently edited it.

I never did. I'm not even registered to edit pages. Wasn't me Bud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.217.113 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was directed to your IP address in January 2008 so was to another user who happened to be using that IP address at the time rather than you in particular. Keith D (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi KeithD, Thanks for the welcome note to Wikipedia amnd thanks for the input onto the articles I've been working on. I noted that they have moved to Start status which is gratifying. I wonder if you could perhaps give me a bit of feedback on them particularly Sambourne or Spernall of which there is not a lot moe to say as these palces are issolated hamlets really. Any feedback would be welcomed. Cheers Adrian Argrogan (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take a look again, probably be a couple of days before I get to it as I am still working my way through changes from a holiday plus period of PC hardware failure. In the meantime have a look at How to write about settlements our guide to writing about UK places, gives you the headings and pointers to content that we think is useful in these type of articles. Keith D (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bradford Telegraph and Argus
Hi Keith D. Please could you kindly look at the above article which various unregistered contributors have been adding to in controversial fashion. What they say may be true for all I know, but what worries me is that they are writing unsubstantiated critical comments about a living person. As I'm just an ordinary contributor myself, I've just been putting cite tags on it, but the unsubstantiated section of the article is now becoming disproportionately large. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the section and requested cite, neutral / balanced point of view in edit summary so we shall see what happens. Keith D (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers, Keith D. Thanks for the help. --Storye book (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Leeds
There is currently a discussion regarding splitting of the Leeds article. As you were involved in the previous merge discussion you might be interested in this. Quantpole (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had already spotted it but have not had a look at the proposal. I will drop by sometime and see what is being proposed. Keith D (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keith,

Thanks for the review of Sambourne I will try to make the corrections suggested when I get the time to do some serious editing Argrogan (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The King's Academy
The GCSE results for The King's Academy were 73% in 2009. The article text needs to be amended to reflect this, as I have attempted to do.

The article source is www.gazettelive.co.uk/.../teesside-students-celebrate-gcse-results-84229-24545306/

Can you assist me in creating a reference for this source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.193.154 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I can but you are going to have to give a valid URL first as the one you have given returns a page not found error. The nearest I can find on that site is but that does not mention King's Academy. Keith D (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I have found it on the second page of that article. Keith D (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I have also left the old reference for information & to support the 2004 figure. Keith D (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The King's Academy #2
Keith, Could you save the last referenced article from the Evening Gazette to show both pages, as the necessary reference to The King's Academy is located on the second page, not the first page that is currently showing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.193.154 (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You will have to explain what you want here, it already displays page 2 when you click on the reference link in the article. Keith D (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New Hall prison
I had a look at this article and fiddled about with (sorry, revised) the text. There are quite a few references to it online, but in a different vein. Maybe you could see what you think?

I shall be away from tomorrow until Monday so I will have another go when I get back if you think it needs it. Sadly, I didn't save Teddy's Nook (what a name for a house!) so moved the text to Saltburn-by-the-Sea. Maybe it will be revived one day.--Harkey (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope you are not living to up in Beverley again, the good folk there need a quiet time. Keith D (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the poor people of Kent had to suffer. (I much prefer the Humber Bridge to the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge on a Friday afternoon.) However, does the New Hall article need any more attention, do you think? As I said, there are a lot more on line mentions but I prefer to let others go there, if they wish.--Harkey (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably one or two of the sentences need tweaking a bit so they are not lifted directly from the references. I would probably not expand it too much at the moment until the copyright problem is sorted out. Keith D (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Stamford, Lincolnshire
Now then me duck

You've added a 'contradiction' tag about eduction, and while I agree that it looks a bit odd to have references to the independent schools in both the history and governance sections I can't see an actual contraditiction.

Maybe I'm thick. I certainly didn't go to Stamford school!--Brunnian (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In main problem is that one section refers to 5 primary schools and the other 6 junior schools - are these the same or are we missing something from each of the sections. It would be best to have all of the information together and not duplicate information between the sections as they can easily get out of step. Keith D (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Stamford endowed schools has a junior school. I'm not sure if they have two or a co-ed one. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

Ah yes - Wikipedia has the answer. "This organisation now comprises Stamford Junior School, a co-educational establishment for pupils aged between 2 and 11 years, Stamford School for boys aged 11–18, and Stamford High School catering for girls of the same age group." It is on the Kettering Road very close to the girls school. Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

Mergeto
Thanks for your note, resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

Re:Help with bot problem
Hi Keith, How are you? I see the bot is working again...glad you were able to find the fix for it. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it that time again already?
I see you have been preparing the October newsletter. It hardly seems a few days since the last one landed on my doorstep! Do you have any thoughts about a feature, yet?--Harkey (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Only a week to go and it is October! I thought that may be we could push school/university articles this month with the start of a new year. The last feature on coastal settlement moved Scarborough along though not much else so somebody must be reading it. Keith D (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Are there any school or university GAs to base a suggested article structure on? Maybe we could find a few reliable sources like the Ofsted site and LEAs etc. There are so many mirrors and spoof sites popping up that are not reliable.--Harkey (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No UK FAs and very little at GA the only school I can spot is City of London School and 2 universities University of Bristol & University of Surrey. Suggest getting people to check out the ofsted links in articles as the site has been restructured and the links to reports no longer go to a report but to the main page. I changed the List of schools in Hull last night when I spotted the problem. The infobox link has already been changed at some point as that appears to work, just external links & references need checking. Keith D (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Both have Wikiprojects WP:WPSCH & WP:UNI with article guidelines and there are recommended infoboxes. Oxford is GA as well. OK we have enough to keep us in business!!--Harkey (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just did a very, very rough start. Please join in :>)--Harkey (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will have a look when AWB run completes only 232 articles to go. Keith D (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

categories
Hi Keith

Sorry not to get back to you sooner - was perhaps feeling a bit wiped out by all the stroppy argumentation re Leeds/Leeds.

Yes, Yorkshire categories are a mess... not least because "Yorkshire" doesn't currently exist (which raises an interesting question about the wikiproject - should it actually be "Yorkshire and the Humber"?!).

Looking at a category like Category:Buildings and structures in England by county, you find Category:Buildings and structures in Yorkshire. But if you go to Category:Grade II listed buildings in England by county there's Category:Grade II listed buildings in West Yorkshire. Then there's Category:Buildings and structures in Yorkshire, which really shouldn't exist.

Perhaps what's really needed is agreement (at some UK/England level?) that "... by counties" should always refer to Ceremonial counties, so that there's an unambiguous set of divisions... but the Yorkshire nationalists would throw a fit. I haven't the stomach for such a fight, but good luck to you! PamD (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Anne Bronte
I just did a GA nomination for Anne Bronte. We can but try!--Harkey (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK we will see what happens, they seem to be taking ages to get through them at them moment. Keith D (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)