User talk:Leaky caldron/Archives/2013/April

CCHT digests
Dear Leaky, Thanks for your interest in this, but please see my latest response to Bbb23 about accuracy disclaimer. So, thanks but no thanks re WP:RSN. Sorry to have wasted your time. Freezing here in Cumbria, but probably not as bad as in the North East! Cheers, Laplacemat (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Leaky, Thanks for your response. As for the warning, it did seem a bit strong, but I imagine being a WP admin. is a thankless task. Since I retired, I take these things like water off a duck's back. As for the CCHT, I don't necessarily believe that what is on the digest pages is inaccurate, but when they have put their own disclaimer on there as regards vetting of facts, I think that must make us wary. The VCH pages, when they are done, are a different kettle of fish: they will have been vetted thoroughly and will be fully referenced and published - in print as well as online (in 15 vols) (but so far, only 2 drafts have been done). See the difference here: 1)Digest: http://www.cumbriacountyhistory.org.uk/township/renwick 2) VCH draft: http://www.cumbriacountyhistory.org.uk/2-full-history-draft-article-0. But please feel free to take this to a WP:RSN if you think it'll stand a chance - I think that what is on the CCHT digests website is probably more accurate than the data gleaned from local newspapers and a lot of amateur local history books published in the 19th Century that seems to be the standard fare, but potentially not as accurate as already published, peer-reviewed books and journal articles. If the WP article citation could have an additional note saying something like "(Provisional data)", that might do, but I doubt it would be allowed. The citations to the digests will have to be replaced on WP with the full VCH ones as they come out. It's a pity there's no sign of a VCH project for Northumberland, although Durham are active, I think. Using unpaid volunteers as in Cumbria is an experiment that might help elsewhere. Cheers, Laplacemat (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Leaky C, Had already deleted links to CCHT before I got your last message (there were only c6 sites affected). I can in no way speak on behalf of the CCHT, so these are just my own two pence worth. As I said to Bbb23, I don't see how WP can link to the CCHT digest pages given the disclaimer about lack of verification of accuracy that currently exists. I'm ignorant of the level of accuracy expected from WP sources beyond what I've read of the guidelines. WP seems to want published, refereed, reliable secondary or 3rd-party sources if poss. The digests are not those, I think, as regards 100% reliable? A key question is whether Wikipedians think that the disclaimer (to see which you have to click on a link on each digest page : http://www.cumbriacountyhistory.org.uk/1-how-was-summary-compiled-cumberland-0 is a) enough to pass a WP reliability guideline test? eg: "unpublished sources are not considered reliable" & "standards of peer-review and fact-checking" etc. b) prominent enough to be seen by WP users? I must admit I'm doubtful on both counts unless WP accepts a "provisional data" caveat to the citation or some such. Anyway, I wouldn't spend too much time on it, if you go ahead. Sorry to hum and hah about this but since Im a newbie, you'll have more idea than me about what WP finds acceptable than I have, I'm sure, so you'll have to use your judgement about it. No Match of the Day, so off to bed. All best, Laplacemat (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Leaky, Many thanks for your effort and trouble in doing this. I've got just one or two comments: 1) "scaring the editor" is a bit strong and also untrue: I had already seen reverts by other editors (of the "Ambleside" and "Appleby" pages, I think), pointing out that the "See also" refs to the EL were incorrect and had started to remove others before Bbb23 (rightly) intervened. Suggest "issues were raised by other editors leading to the removal of .." instead. 2) The phrase "and has been vetted by University of Lancaster" is incorrect. That is my phrase to Bbb23, written before I saw the CCHT disclaimer on the "Digest" pages. The dislaimer says just the opposite ie: that the info is from volunteers and has not yet been checked for accuracy (an essential requirement of the CCHT mission). Suggest replacing it with a phrase like the following: "and has been compiled from a standard set of sources based on training and guidance from the University of Lancaster to be found here: http://www.cumbriacountyhistory.org.uk/sites/default/files/Briefing%20Note%20Jubilee%20Digests%20(Revised).pdf ." 3) The next sentence ("The future expansion...") is too ambiguous. I think we should be upfront about the fact that the VCH project will include the vetting of the facts given in the CCHT Digests to a an even more rigorous standard. Hope this helps, Leaky, and thanks again. Laplacemat (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Leaky, Will add CCHT ELs in dribs and drabs, with an explanation on each article Talk page and a link to the WP:RSN archive (as suggested to me by admin. Bbb23). I'm really grateful for your help with this, Leaky. Although I said above that the VCH are not active in Northumberland, it's probably because the Northumberland County History Committee has already produced a 15-vol. local history ( http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/och/northumberland.shtml ) finishing in 1940. So you lot over there have already been through this process - only took c120 years & was started off by a Cumbrian! See: John Hodgson (antiquary). All the best, Laplacemat (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

cart --> crat
thx. the dangers of auto correct! --regentspark (comment) 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I'm sure you do understand the references i made on Thatcher's talk page! I was trying to be a voice of compromise over there, but at the same time elsewhere, i have also been researching several other aspects to do with Thatcher (not yet covered), for inclusion when the fuss died down. I gotta admit, the more I searched, the more I found it hard to suppress my (long-held) anger. I also gotta admit my "links" were pretty twattish for an article's talk page, and far from the "voice of reason" - I'm going to stay away from the discussion, until I've calmed down, and until I can add some really useful information. Thanks for giving me a swift (but gentle) kick in the nuts! Hillbillyholiday talk 11:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010
I am contacting you because you have participated in prior discussions at the above article, and it would be appreciated if you gave your views on an current dispute. One editor wants to add a gallery of images for people who declined to stand for the leadership. Another editor objects on the grounds that doing so puts undue weight on the people who did not participate. -Rrius (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Oikawa00 and co
I spotted your MfDs about the 5 related accounts' talk pages, and opened an SPI. It's a bit unconventional, as there has obviously been no mainspace disruption, but they're clearly the same person, and are just as clearly WP:NOTHERE. SPI is here. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)