User talk:Refsworldlee/archive06

Bowie
Hi. The interview he says Tadcaster with Parkinson is actually on YouTube.com I think its this one (in 2002). Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Driscoll - Bylot
Hello, I want to request a new rating of my article on Bobby Driscoll - up to a GA-rating. What is your opinion. - Can I dare it? - What is still missing, what too much? - Grammar etc.? Concerning the copyrights, I had problems with the images I had embedded and had to remove them, except the one in the info-box, which is apparently accepted now. Since you're probably busy with your editing-job, take your time. I'm not in a hurry. Thanks in advance. Regards - --Bylot (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nashville Homeless Power Project
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nashville Homeless Power Project, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Nashville Homeless Power Project. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to note that this article still survives! Ref (chew) (do) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Martin Postle article
I realize how there is so much for to do to make it better. I will work to identify source information to get more information. Right now all the info comes from the internet and article found there. It is me i think (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

June Mathis
Thanks for the upgrade on June Mathis. I hadn't intended to give her a rewrite but she kinda needed it. If you can make suggestions on how to move my other ladies up a grade, I'd appreciate it. I don't think more than one of two of my articles will ever be worth submitting for GA, but I'd like to at least get them to B-status. I still have more research materials to scour. EraserGirl (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Pike (referee)
Hey. I never knew that articles being assessed by the author was frowned upon... fair enough. And wouldn't it pass as start by "a particularly useful picture or graphic", depending on how a picture/graphic is defined as "particularly useful". Mattythewhite (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'll keep putting articles up for assessment in mind for future articles. And the article is certainly in need of a good expansion and gets into start class by the skin of its teeth. Any good sources for refs you can think of? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fay Kanin
Thanks for the rethink on Fay, I couldn't see how she differed from my other articles of the same ilk. Dorothy on the other hand will always be a problem child. I was hoping I would get by because what was there was well represented. I am now sifting through all of Clare Boothe Luce's works with the hope that she may have mentioned Dorothy at length. I am not holding out much hope. EraserGirl (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said on your talk page, I'm so unsure of how much more there is that I've dug my heels in! So good luck with it. Thanks for your post. Ref (chew) (do) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

John Leonard Orr‎
Just for giggles, I cleaned up the citations on John Leonard Orr‎ and I was wondering what is the preferred point where the citations should be sectioned into footnotes and bibliography? when it merely LOOKS unwieldy or has a certainly level of detail? EraserGirl (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Accidentally found another source today. This article is not on my TODO list, why do I keep playing with it?....I also found nice juicy section on Dorothy Hale in a Luce bio. Enough to give it some lovely texture. EraserGirl (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Dean
where shall I start. 'harshly sent off' = npov, whether it's cited or not! numerous selective citations and references supporting Chelsea's view against a single card, selective reference to only a Chelsea appeal. 'being scored marginally after the declared added time had been played at the end of the first half' = weasel words. further, a single game in an article on the whole referee's career - and a not especially important one at the time, played in september - does not warrant a paragraph nearly as long as the ref's background.

wikipedia is a neutral source of facts. it is not for selective citation based bashing of a particular referee for fans of one team for a single match. this is an article on the refereee Mike Dean, not an opinion piece on his performance in any game.

i am very much aware that this game was contentious, and 'could' have changed the outcome of the league, but it is clearly opinion masked through selective citations in a game that for all other clubs in the football league was meaningless. if every ref had a paragraph like this in their article, each of their pages would be never ending gripes on games long past. this article should be a neutral, factual background piece about the ref, summing his whole - many game - career.

if you are able to point out exactly why this should be a special case, exactly why it is notable, and make a neutral, well balanced, short piece, and include all other similar incidents in the entire career of mike, and keep the page within wikipedia's length guidance, then by all means go for it!

(i've also added this to the talk page of the article, you are welcome to respond there)81.96.251.179 (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the IP Address of a blocked user (vandalism)! What a sticky end. Ref (chew) (do) 11:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mike Dean
ok, if you want to play it this way.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 81.96.251.179 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

please read what I have said. It is not possible to have a detailed discussion of every refereeing decision in the career of a ref on their page. what you have added simply is not notable, as per WP:NOTE. you have picked out one game where one side has an aggrievance and posted it on a page noting the entire career of a referee - this is neither npov, or even fair. If you wish to discuss the article, with myself and other users, please use the talk page of the article and draw up a cogent arguement as to why what you have written should remain. If not will continue to revert this, and shall also analyse other edits you have made to the same topic for other such errors. 81.96.251.179 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto re: the above. Ref (chew) (do) 11:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dorothy Hale
Dorothy has had a tiny growth spurt, probably not enough to rate a reassessment, but you may see some improvements. EraserGirl (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

David Allen Hulse
The work of you and others have successfully removed the speedy deletion box on my David Allen Hulse Article. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tad Slamp (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Contributions to football articles
Hi, I wanted to drop by and let you know how much I appreciate your contributions to many football related articles, and most especially those related to refereeing. Thank you, and keep editing! --ChaChaFut (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

FA Cup Final referees
Hi - User:82.45.193.152 has recently made numerous edits to the article on FA Cup Final referees, but his edit summaries contain words such as "Sorry, can't remember my source for Henry Pearce, so feel free to ignore it." or "Sorry, can't remember my sources for Arthur Holland, but don't ignore it: he was a VERY famous referee (European Nations Cup Final, etc etc". This user is actually the writer Cris Freddi - I have been in correspondence with him many times. He is clearly highly knowledgeable and presumably has access to a huge reference library, but I cannot persuade him to cite any references when he makes amendments.

I expect that some, possibly most, of the amendments he has made to the Cup Final referees page are correct, although I reverted them all because, in many cases, he broke the links to the referee's article, e.g. by altering C.W. Alcock to Charlie Alcock and William Rawson to W.S. Rawson.

If and when you have the time, could you look at the list of referees and Cris Freddi's alterations/edit summaries to see if any of his changes can be re-instated.

Thanks for any help you can give. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Kirkham & Fred Kirkham
Going on from my previous comment, Cris Freddi also suggests that the referee at the 1902 FA Cup Final was not Fred Kirkham (from Preston) but Tom Kirkham (from Burslem).

I must admit, I think that he is probably correct, but this contradicts so many sources. For example IFFHS say "“Fred” Kirkham from Burslem  officiated at 3 English Cup finals" (This presumably includes the replay in 1902) and the Spurs website says "Fred Kirkham had been a referee for 17 years and had officiated at the 1902 and 1906 FA Cup Finals".

On the other hand, the Sporting Chronicle refers to the referee at the 1902 final as "T Kirkham" and "Match of the Millenium" (which gives full reports on 100 games involving Southampton FC) gives the referee of the 1902 Final as "T. Kirkham (Burslem)". This site also gives the referee as "T. Kirkham".

Can you shed any light - I am minded to re-write the Fred Kirkham article and create one for Tom Kirkham but would appreciate someone else's opinion first. Thanks again. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor addition proposed to Menstrie Castle page
I've got a reference http://www.scottisharchitects.org.uk/building_full.php?id=411804 It's the entry for the 'Menstrie Place Housing Scheme with Menstrie Castle' in the Dictionary of Scottish Architects. It gives a few dates relative to the process of redevelopment. Any use ? Craig Omus (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just Noticed You're Back
Hi Ref, Just went on a sitesee & I noticed your'e contributing. I'm glad. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexanders of Menstrie
You have perpetuated in this article the very common error that the Alexanders of Menstrie are descended from the Clan MacAlistair. This is highly unverifiable for they are in fact descended from the Clan Donald.

Stirling, Earl of (S, 1633 - dormant 1739) Creation: let.pat. 14 Jun 1633 Dormant: 4 Dec 1739 Family name: Alexander ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arms: Quarterly: 1st and 4th, per pale Argent and Sable a Chevron and in base a Crescent all counterchanged (Alexander);  2nd and 3rd, Or a Galley oars in action Sable sails furled flagged Gules between three Cross Crosslets of the last (Macdonald);  over all on an Escutcheon Argent charged with a Saltire Gules, an Inescutcheon crowned Or charged with a Lion rampant within a Double Tressure flory counterflory Gules (Nova Scotia)

http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/index1734.htm

William Alexander (of Menstrie) Earl of Stirling would not have quartered his arms with Macdonald if he were a MacAlistair.

Menstray (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. First off, as I have consistently included in the article Menstrie Castle a hyperlink to a source which puts the Alexanders firmly in the lineage of the MacAlistairs, it is indeed verifiable (not at all "unverifiable" as you seem to think) - follow the hyperlink in the article for that verification. Secondly, the use of the pseudo-definitive words "in fact" by yourself when attempting to correct me/the article, and then accidentally omitting a named source by poor use of the referencing formatting in Wikipedia (I have changed your mistaken attempt at referencing to a standard hyperlink so we can all see what you are on about). And thirdly, please take a look at Cranntara.org, a notable website which promotes and preserves the culture and history of Scotland, and specifically the page at http://www.cranntara.org.uk/clanmac.htm#cmaca. This too denies your claim regarding "unverifiable" assertions. When you read on through this page, you will note their translation states "Alasdair is the Gaelic for Alexander". You should then realise that the truth is very close at hand.


 * You could always fly in the face of my research today, and the sources supporting the current style of the article, and go ahead and make the changes to the article. Wikipedia is for everyone, and no-one owns an article, therefore no permission need be sought from anyone to make such an edit.


 * However, based on what I know from my research into the Castle, and its previous landlords and tenants, and indeed based on what I have quoted to you today, I would feel obliged to revert any attempts by anyone to introduce weakly sourced edits into an article which, although difficult to provide sources for in the past, appears to have the correct information, soundly based on those "verifiable" sources currently available on the internet at this time, and also in print.


 * I would strongly advise you to repeat the claims you have made to me today in the article talk page Talk:Menstrie Castle. That way, we could possibly get a broader discussion going among a variety of Wikipedia editors, rather than just you and I going "head-to-head", as it were.


 * Unfortunately, regarding your final sentence in your message to me, this appears overly speculative ("William Alexander (of Menstrie) Earl of Stirling would not have quartered his arms with Macdonald if he were a MacAlistair"). Who are we as editors of an open source encyclopaedia to engage in what someone would or would not have done, when we have no factual knowledge in this instance? None of us currently living could possibly have been there to witness events (either in the 1630s or the 1730s)!


 * From a personal standpoint, I am a little disappointed that your userpage appears to be completely unformed at this point, as it is nice to know something about the editors with which one is interacting, and indeed your usertalk page is certainly unsullied by any discernible talk, so it's not possible to get a taster from that angle either (and is also the reason I am replying to you here and not on your usertalk page). The important thing is that yours is a genuine Wikipedia account, and not one set up purely to achieve any kind of personal agenda or campaign (God forbid!). Ref (chew) (do) 16:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back
I've missed you. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks. Though recently I have not, and probably in the future will still not, invest as much time in the whole WP project as I used to, or as it deserves. Heigh ho.Ref (chew) (do) 18:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back
It's great to see you. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just popping in from time to time. Still no signs of me coming back full-time, I'm afraid. But it's nice to hear from you, and I hope you and yours are well. Ref (chew) (do) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Twas great to hear from you
Your warm and informative message -- I had wondered/worried about you -- came in the midst of moving from house (after 37 years) to condo/flat. Not downsizing, but levelizing - no stairs, no snowshoveling. I agree, my intensity on WP is lower than before, but that's mainly because it has somewhat matured. I mostly do protective maintenance against vandals, and like you some drive-by editing when I spot bad grammar or facts. Anyway, I'm glad that you're apparently well and happy. Always delighted to hear from you. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lovely. No stairs! We could all aspire to that. My latest was a biggie. Someone couldn't translate "Mai" from the German in a birthdate without calling it "March"!!! Ah well. Ref (chew) (do) 15:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mary Miller
'''Re. Mary Miller''' I see that you have created the actress, Mary Miller's Wikipedia profile. Are you in contact with Mary by any chance? jameschurch @hotmail.co.uk 46.208.75.248 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. No I am not. I created the article from all known sources, without reference to the person herself (as all good Wikipedia editors should), and had no wish to disturb her in what I assume (since 2005) is a happy retirement. I have not tried to contact her, paying due respect to her privacy in her later years, and I hope you will be observing the same. If you are completing something like a family tree, and suspect you may be related, I wish you luck with that. Otherwise, I suspect she would value her peace and quiet after a lifetime in the spotlight. I have no agent's details for her either, I'm afraid. Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do) 17:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Kefee Obareki Don Momoh
Hi ,

Re your addition of an age of 23 to the 'Kefee' (Kefee Obareki Don Momoh) entry on Deaths in 2014 as seen the source  seems 'bloggy', so possibly not a very reliable source. Secondly, that would place her birthdate on 4/5th February 1991, but according to sources that I added to her fairly new bio page, she was first married in ≈2005. Do people in Nigeria get married at age 14-15? Possibly, but some of the comments on the 'gistmania' page are also somewhat 'suspicious' of her turning 21 in February 2012.

Just wondering, if you happen to find a good source, please add it to her page, if possible or let me know, as there is no age information on her page at all right now.--220  of  Borg 15:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On closer inspection, the 'GistMania' entry appears to have been generated using info from the person herself, before her sad death - through a social media post similar to, or actually, Twitter. Therefore it's unreliable, therefore I have removed her age from the 'Deaths' page. Thank you again for making me revisit this, and putting right misinformation, or at least biased information. Best wishes and good luck with the article. Ref (chew) (do) 06:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries. I think I found another source agreeing with the birthdate of 5 February, but no certain year noted. Not certain what people are thinking but the creator of the page went in and removed all the sources I added about her marriages, infobox data, person data, 'cats' etc. I put em back, which was a pain in the a#£e to do as I couldn't just revert by then. :-\ And I just found out they reverted me back! Fortunately, someone was able to revert them fairly quickly. They even blanked all the nice informative templates I put on their talkpage!  Some 'prophet' huh? ;-)  --220  of  Borg 11:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember - the creator of the page cannot claim ownership of the article; he has done his bit, and other editors will validly add proper information to the piece. He can be reported for removing information which enhances an article and helps promote the truth. Keep going back there, it sounds worth it. I've no doubt a birth year will emerge at some point soon, as her "vanity reason" for knocking years off her age has obviously disappeared with her demise. Good luck. Ref (chew) (do) 20:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ed Nimmervoll songwriter
He did co-write a song for Little River Band. Granted, it was a minor song. WWGB (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope I haven't offended you on this, but I do believe that a larger body of work in that area should exist before that particular notability can be established. I actually glean musical obituaries from this page for a project I carry out in the social network "This Is My Jam", and I routinely check for YouTube/MP3 content from anyone connected to music who has died. I became a little suspicious when his name brought up nothing at all. I do feel that the claim is not properly supported, so I won't be reverting (I won't be reverting any reverting either!). Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do) 07:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not offended at all. I'm the first to agree that it is not a significant song. I'm a big Little River Band, so I just thought I would throw it into the initial mix. WWGB (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. Ref (chew) (do) 05:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

2BD Aberdeen
Hi, Ref. As it's been a few years since there were any major updates to the article, this is just a "heads-up" (as they say) about a note I've posted on the 2BD talk page. -- Picapica (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I leave all that in your capable hands, and in anyone else's, given the time. I do not, unfortunately, have that much time to spare for WP editing these days, save for one or two pet subjects. Good luck. Ref (chew) (do) 20:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

April 2017
Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for any apologies involving such "good faith" edit mishaps!! But thanks for acknowledging here. Ref (chew) (do) 05:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Venus Ramey
The previous link that led to her obituary was non existent and upon googling her name, that's the link (the one I placed) that I was led to, so I replaced it. Didn't know there was a shortened version, just fyi Snickers2686 (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. But between the "dead" link you saw and your edit tweaking it, I had already found the shortened version URL of the same page yours pointed to. I think we all have to be careful to check and double-check the edit history each time we make an edit, but I do appreciate your attempt to make a good faith edit anyway. Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do) 17:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Gard
I didn't want to violate 3RR by deleting the entry so I hid it. If you wish to delete it go ahead. Rusted AutoParts 18:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But my opinion is that his notability is inescapable, so why would I do that? Ref (chew) (do) 18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * State that on the discussion for it then. And define what you mean by inescapable. The case certainly, Charlie himself is debatable. Rusted AutoParts 18:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, if I could avoid all the edit conflicts on the Talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 deaths
Good afternoon,

I notice that when you correct the new content of the page, in the edit summary you often write "stop! space!". What do you mean?

Thanks in advance and sorry for the inconvenience. Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Alsoriano97 (talk • contribs)
 * As I mentioned on your talk page, these are very small mistakes you are making at the moment when editing the page, but you don't seem to have taken the advice on board. All you need to do is refrain from adding a full stop (or period) into the source headline, and make sure you put that space between the source details and the language icon code, and I won't even have to make an edit so repeatedly to your new entries. Although they are small errors, they have to be corrected, and devoting time to this every day is quite frustrating. I understand we all have to learn some time, but we also have to learn by our mistakes, do you agree? Best wishes anyway, and good editing. Ref (chew) (do) 16:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The point of my edit is that Heather Heyer does NOT have her own bio article and thus doesn't belong on the deaths list (the redirect obscures this and the piping to an article that barely mentions her in passing illustrates it). Where past uses of articles for a family member of the deceased have been considered insufficient for notability surely an article that is about the event at which the deceased died is even less sufficient? Letting a redirect stand is more against the consensus on notability than what I did.LE (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Say WHAT, LE??? I have no idea what you are on about, as this here was a conversation between myself and one other editor. Please be more specific, and open up a new section on my Talk page for each new issue. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 18:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)