User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2006 b

Intentions and consequences
That may not have been your intention when writing the article, but that is, in my opinion, the consequence. It is an entirely unencyclopaedic topic, except perhaps as an example of charity marketing. It is certainly nothing whatsoever to do with the vast majority of UK counties (mostly long deceased). As the topic is currently presented it is highly misleading, and being used by activists from County Watch and the "Association of British Counties" (sic) pressure groups to further their bizarre creed. --Mais oui! 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed there is. In fact you have hit the nail on the head with that query, because that is really what is so misleading about the current article. US state flowers are adopted and used by the state authorities: they have official status. Plantlife made a fundamental error in choosing to run their competition for a bunch of (mostly) defunct counties. There is no legitimate body in existence to adopt or use most of these flowers. It should be made crystal clear in the very first sentence that this was merely a promo campaign by a charity, and has no official status. --Mais oui! 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Procedural query
Hi SP-KP

In answer to your question, I removed the sprotected tag from the Tony Blair article because I unprotected it. That is one of the discretionary tasks granted to administrators. It had been protected since 26 March following a spate of vandalism. That seemed to me to have died down, although it has now grown a bit as well :-(

Protection policy and Semi-protection policy dictate that page protection is a measure of last resort. I agree with that. Those pages will direct you to the relevant place to request further protection or unprotection. It was over a week since the protection was applied which, in my view, was more than enough time to deal with the problem. The page in question has been on my watchlist for a long time and I will continue to monitor it. I hope that answers your question, but if not, let me know. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a large question, which has no right or wrong answer. I unprotected the Tony Blair article because I am familiar with it, and the level of vandalism it gets. Reviewing the history indicated that the vandalism had almost ceased since the protection was applied (which was over a week since - much too long). Hence my decision. In unfamiliar situations, all we have to go on is the article history and discussion with other admins. HTH. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yellow-vented Bulbul
Done the little I can, jimfbleak 07:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Procellariidae
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the vexed (more so even those albatrosses) question of procellariid taxonomy. I have presented the traditional and more modern one, though I have no idea really which one is accepted (I only began rewriting the Procellariidae page recently). Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

migration
I suppose talk:bird migration might be the logical place.

The problem remains one of definition. I suppose the broadest categories could be to divide into
 * 1) completely or almost completely migratory
 * 2) partial migrant
 * 3) resident/ local movement /altitudinal movement only

Geographical categories are fraught with difficulty. Think of Northern Pintail, Pink-footed Goose, Blue-and-white Swallow, Great Shearwater, Pine Warbler, Short-eared Owl. jimfbleak 12:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your alert
Thanks for letting me know, especially as we disagree on this. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, true &mdash; well, thanks anyway. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Lake District
I've attempted to tidy up this page you marked as needing a bit of a look at; you may want to check to see if you think I've been succesful! Robdurbar 09:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hampshire/Dorset
I'd second this, Steinsky. I have a lot of respect for you & your editing, but here (and at Dorset) I think you've been unduly rash. As you say, there is a good case that this isn't an important enough fact for the intro - so the appropriate thing to do would be to move it somewhere else in the article. How about reinserting the mentions in a place you feel would be appropriate? All the best. SP-KP 17:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned the Dorset flower at Geology of Dorset. I personally do not see it as being notable enough to go in the main Dorset article - googling '"Dorset Heath" "county flower"' finds four pages: Plantlife, Wikipedia, a message board post and a short news item on the Poole local government/services partnership site.
 * The appropriate thing to do would be to spend the time to make additions to articles properly, rather than semi-automatically dump facts without consideration to the existing structure of the articles. Joe D (t) 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

CVL on the main page
Thanks for your comments re CVL on the main page. I'm not to worried about the date & I will be out of the country & out of contact on 17th anyway (back on 21st) so because of the vandalism/editing it's probably a good thing - I will check it before & after whatever date it does get featured. Did you have any further thoughts on the proposed CV template you started? Rod 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"County" flowers
Do as you think best. Personally I am not too bothered: I love flora (I am a part-trained arborist, armchair ornithologist, and general pro species-diversificationist), but due to the ante-diluvian, fantasist, outrageously-POV activities of County Watch and the "Association of British Counties" (sic) I have become thoroughly opposed to Wikipedia being used as a vehicle for the "traditional counties" dafties.

Please just make sure that the relevant articles make clear that (in the UK) this all began as a marketing campaign by a minor charity; and that the Scottish counties were abolished, by statute, in 1975: meaning that there are no Scottish "counties" to have a flower. --Mais oui! 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you have a look at this POV pushing by the "county flower" brigade: Renfrewshire (historic). They are desperately trying to hide the fact that this was a very recent marketing campaign by a charity, and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the long defunct county. --Mais oui! 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Basic factual information is being concealed. Firstly the header: "Trivia" is necessary, because the information about the "county flower" (sic) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the former Scottish county: it is purely the modern invention of an external, private organisation.

Secondly, why the attempt to conceal that this was part of a marketing campaign? That is absolutely fundamental information, without which it is hopelessly POV.

Thirdly, how can Renfrewshire have a "county flower" imposed upon it 27 years after its demise? If the WWF suddenly decided that they were a bit short of cash (when aren't they?) and that the "imperial whale" of Phoenicia was the Giant beaked, or that the "state bird" of the Dutch Republic was the Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse, or that... (you get my drift... ) ... do you think that the editors of the Phoenicia or Dutch Republic Wikipedia articles would be very amused if advocates of the "Association of British Whale-spotters" or "Sandgrouse Watch" tried to insert the trivia in the introduction of those articles? No? I thought not. Then why, may I ask, must Renfrewshire (the county of my birth, proudly printed on my birth certificate) suffer such post-mortem indignities. The dead should be left to rest in peace, and not poked around with a dirty stick by a minor charity looking to boost its meagre coffers, nor less by a bunch of antediluvian "traditional county" (Lord preserve us) fantasists.

Finally, just a minor point, but the term "nationwide" is highly ambiguous in Scotland (and England, Wales and Ireland too I would argue) - if that is to stay it must be changed to "UK-wide". --Mais oui! 05:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair
I'm aware of the history: it gets plenty of vandalism in amongst plenty of good edits. It's a high profile article: there is no consensus anywhere for indefinite semi-protection of anything. Even George W. Bush is just an uneasy truce for now. It had been protected for 10 days to deal with run-of-the-mill vandalism, adn that's more than enough. This is a wiki, remember — people can edit it, including those without an account. Thanks. -Splash talk 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RFPP is for non-admins to request (un)protection. An admin who find a protection that has languished or a page that needs protecting, doesn't have to go through that page to achieve it. I (fairly) regularly work my way through CAT:SEMI, as no other admin seems ever to do so. Tonight it was at about 100 articles, the vast majority of them long-forgotten by their protecting admins. So I just lift protections as I see fit; there isn't any need or obvious value in making 100 requests on RFPP and then leaving another admin to carry out the 70+ unprotects resulting. I just do it myself. -Splash talk 23:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, I don't think so as such. It's not like deletion or anything. -Splash talk 23:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the alternative, as I described above, would be kerazy. -Splash talk 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You can make any edit you like. However, if I was the admin handling your request at RFPP, I would reject it as I have done numerous times before. There is no point protecting Tony Blair because he's never going to be low profile, and we should not be keeping articles protected for literally years. I can tell you however, that you won't find support among editors or admins for admins having to take every single unprotect to that page. It is simply not sensible. -Splash talk 23:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I make literally hundreds of such unprotects per month. Nobody complains, for the most part, and this is another good sign that I and other admins should carry on doing it without filling in forms for others to act on. If you don't like vandals, then perhaps we should be writing on paper. -Splash talk 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Geography of Gosport
Done, but it better look like an article PDQ, or it will get deleted again. In future use a sandbox, or userpage, and don't create an article that isn't one yet. --Doc ask?  18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on the new title and scope of the article. Now this has the genesis of an excellent addition to our encyclopaedia. Thank you. --Mais oui! 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

List of non-administrators
I added your name to WP:NA just now. You might want to indicate if you are interested or not. From your conversation with Splash, it seems you have some interest in such matters. Your RfA would be noncontroversial if you had more project space and talk edits, unless I missed something important. BTW, you'll need a email addess, if you wish to proceed, but an anonymous gmail or yahoo address suffices.Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for letting me know. At the moment I have no view on whether I want to be an administrator, but I'm willing to listen to arguments for & against. Happy to discuss. SP-KP 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Participating at WP:RFA is a good place to learn more. See WP:GRFA for more information about the process. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. My reaction on reading those pages is that the nomination process looks too painful, so I think I'll decline the offer, but if you feel that's the wrong decision, I'm happy to listen. SP-KP 18:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand. It is one of the few places on Wikipedia where it is considered reasonable and proper to comment on the character, social skills and intelligence of another editor. But with 8000 edits, someone will probably nominate you anyhow sooner or later. I struck your name to WP:NA; restore it if you change your mind. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the Expands already
I am wondering whether it reall helps to be inserting dozens of Expand templates throughout Wikipedia, particularly if you don't say what you think these articles are missing. To be honest, I'm not sure what there is to be gained. Will these Expand templates really cause someone to add to the article?? Almost any article could be expanded.

I could see adding one or two documented Expand templates, but dozens of undocumented? Enough already. My 2¢, Madman 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Central Range
As long as the dab page exists, but the article does not, it makes more sense to link to the dab page - at least that page has some information. But if you insist on replacing the links, please point to Central Range, Trinidad and Tobago, not Central Range, Trinidad - should have the country name, not the island name, unless there is some need to dab further. Guettarda 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-existent article? SP-KP 19:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Guettarda 19:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I hadn't realised. In a case like that I would have created the article first, and then linked the pages to it.  Guettarda 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

West Indian restricted-range endemic bird species
While populating the West Indian restricted-range endemic bird species category you missed two birds. You can see list of endemic fauna of Puerto Rico or I can give you a hint, Elfin-woods Warbler and Puerto Rican Spindalis. Take care. Joelito 15:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of assistance to you. If you need any help with PR birds just leave me a message. I'm working on the Yellow-shouldered Blackbird article in my sandbox. I will add the category when I publish the article. Take care.Joelito 15:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley peer review
I'verecently put the Chew Valley article (and Chew Stoke) up for peer review - as you've been involved, particularly in defining the area, would you be kind enough to make some comment? Rod 20:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done quite a lot of work on this article as part of the peer review & have now put it up for Featured Aticle - I'd be grateful if you'd take another look & make any coments. Rod 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Albatross
I'll be there on the 4th to watch over the article. As for the next FAC bird family, I've been distracted lately but had been working on Procellariidae. I'll try and finish it this week. Thing is, after the ninth of May I'm going back into the field with no internet access for 4 months. Quite a long wikivacation. It should be awesome, I'll be on Tern Island in French Frigate Shoals, so at least I can come back with lots of good seabird photographs. But, in the meantime can you keep an eye on Albatross? It tends to attract well meaning but erroneous edits along the lines of "the fly and sleep at the same time", which I have been catching. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul Hunter
I've tidied up the article a bit. There's still room for improvement, but I think it's improved to the level where the cleanup tag is no longer needed. Let me know if you think it needs more. CTOAGN (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

About the Geography of Gosport
Sorry about this. See both Geography of Gosport and Talk:Gosport. Simply south 18:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

biobarnstar proposal
Hi SP-KP, thanks for you comments on the biobarnstar. You didn't like the 1st draft of the biobarnstar. Please make a suggestion what you would like to see & I'll incorporate it. Ciao, Jasu 14:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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 02:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In reference to Bio-barnstar proposal: What is the next move?
There was much talk lately about the bio-barnstar proposal, but these past 5 days there hasn't been more said. What is next? What is there to be done? Can we move this foward...? It is the first time I involve myself in a barnstar proposal and I do not know what is the procedure. I seem to read there is quite a support for a bio-barnstar and a considerable preference for the second proposal... Please, could someone tell me what next? Thanks.--Francisco Valverde 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Question for you
Any thoughts on this edit you made about 10 months ago? Is this really POV? Please respond with any further problems you have. Thanks. -- Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark)  03:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alula wikification
Hi,

I replied on my talk page. I thought to leave you a notice here, in case you skipped over the disclaimer at the top of my talk page. — Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Lepidoptera
Hi SP-KP,

Your wish list and activity on moths indicate that you are interested in authoring articles and contributing content to Wikipedia on Lepidoptera. WikiProject Lepidoptera is up for assisting you in this endeavour. Do peruse the wikiproject. Comments are welcome. We hope that you find the WikiProject meaningful and useful enough to consider joining it.

Regards, AshLin 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops!
You are correct. Missed the first in the List of the first female holders of political offices. Have rectified my error. Cheers. Moriori 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly
The only "problem" there has been is nothing to do with calmness but to do with one editor who has a history of having an unhealthy interest in my editing (to the extent of archiving on his pages my talk pages with no real justification) - but thanks for your comment. Robertsteadman 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that you have no axe to grind, but you have said that you believe that I' m a sock puppet. That is hardly an impartial view is it? If I had been one of the editors involved in this long running saga, I wouldn't have tried to offer up that newspaper article as 'new' evidence when it had lready been offerred up previously, would I? I really don't see what the big deal about referring to Ruth Kelly's irish roots is. After all, if she wasnb't fond of them, she would probably have chosen children's names such as 'michigan' or 'indigo' as is the fashion.Neuropean 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1) It is not just me who believes you are a sock and out to cause trouble - your contribution show that. 2) Show the proof that she chose those names to show her Irishness and not just suppose it and it can stay - verifiability. 3) Don't use other people's talk pages to wage your petty war. Robertsteadman 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rob, try to cool it for a bit and let's let the editor think about and respond to the invitation - see also my follow-up note to the above on his/her talk page. SP-KP 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SPKP.... So, it is perfectly acceptable NOT to assume good faith as long as you are polite enough to tell the person concerned? I didn't see that particular spin on the AGF advice. If I WAS a sockpupet of Frelke or LondonIrish, I could easily have engineered Steadman into another 3RR block, but I'm not. I was tempted to revert the 'heritage' section, but I don't want to get a block either. I honestly don't see why Steadman is so worked up over the placing of a few commas and the order of some words.Neuropean 19:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Steadman.... I'm not sure why you are getting so personal about this? I was invited to comment on this page, if that is OK with you? Please desist from making personal attacks. Why can't we argue the article and NOT focus on the editors involved.Neuropean 19:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this article has been cited: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/interviews/story/0,,1575948,00.html

but it does show that Ruth Kelly does consider herself to be Irish

You wouldn't guess it to hear her speak, but for the first 20 years of Kelly's life she did not consider herself British at all.

''After jumping up a year and sitting O-levels at a private day school, at 15 she decided to move to Ireland: "My grandmother was sick, so I offered to go back and look after her." Why? "Umm, I just felt very strongly about putting something back into Ireland." Her grandmother died after six weeks, but Kelly stayed for a year anyway, living with her aunt and taking A-level French.''Neuropean 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suspicious of you SPKP - I don't know you. I do, however, resent your 'opinion' that I am a sockpuppet. You are, of course, welcome to that opinion, but, having rechecked AGF, I still believe that it is uncharitable and unwiki of you to voice that opinion unless you have the evidence and inclination to start a RFCU. That said, your allegations don't bother me that much - they are pretty tame compared to those of a third party.Neuropean 19:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN
I think WP:AN is the appropriate place for such a discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hickman's potentilla
Thanks for the FA nom for this article. Im looking for expansion possibilities, which are hard to come by for a plant so rare and about which so little is known. Here are some possible avenues:


 * possible short section on Alice Eastwood, the discoverer. Her photo hangs prominently at the calif acad of sciences steinhart facility and there is a lot of info on her.


 * short section on habitats of the this flower


 * expansion of the re-discovery in Monterey in the 90s


 * expanded discussion of the role of the Environmental Impact Statement in elucidating data on rare plants and becoming the 21st century database.


 * chronology of earlier sightings of the plant by location and discoverer

Let me know your thoughts as to which of these makes the most sense. Regards Covalent 05:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rapid feedback. im reading some of the animal FAs and ill see what i can do on the expansion ideas above/ regards Covalent 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Edits by 81.19.57.170
It was edits like this  that made me think 'this is not simple vandalism'. Some of the other edits like, at a quick glance didn't look like vandalism either. On closer look I can see how they can be seen as unhelpful edits, but blocks in response to AIV reports are usually only for clear, obvious, 'right now' vandalism.

As to how to deal with editors like this... It can be tricky, and the response depends on the balance of good, bad and indifferent edits. If there are a significant number of good edits, might be best just to keep a good eye on the contribs and revert the bad ones. If you find yourself continually reverting the same bad ones then a block for disruption might be in order. That may or may not have the effect of getting them to discuss things. Petros471 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've blocked again, along with a note about discussing edits. Hopefully that will have some effect. Petros471 20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of something
elements cross-posted

[Flagging up over here too. :-)]


 * Hmm. I agree that it's a real difficulty. Some have likened Wikipedia's internal processes to a game of "Calvinball" - certainly, there is a strong element of fluidity and flexibility in some of what we do - though, certainly, to a lesser extent than the "progress towards consensus, harmonious discussion, respect for alternative viewpoints, the pursuit of well-written, NPOV text" and so on that you mentioned rather worthily. :-)
 * Have you considered becoming a sysop? I'm tempted to nominate you - given what you've said here, I think you'll be an asset.
 * James F. (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do I really have to tolerate threats like this?
I find this quite objectionable. It is false - I am not editing against consensus but for verifiability. And the undertones are ominous. What do you suggest?Robertsteadman 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thought you should know this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bazzajf

Canyons and gorges
Hello. I originally read the nomination as only applying to the top cat; revisiting it I see that was careless, and that the rename nomination was to ripple down the hierarchy. Leave it to me - I'll do it tomorrow when I get a chance. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards, RobertG &#9836; talk 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)