User talk:Stephen Turner/archive10

CQ
Done. Sorry for the delay. Tintin 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bollyline
Would really like some consensus but the WikiProject seems to be on holiday en-masse. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Miller
Are you referring to his war record or AFL? --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Gilchrist
Sorry about the first undo it was actually a slip, however his retirement info does belong in the intro paragraph, as he is known as a cricketer his major career news should be listed in Intro. Erick880 (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't read the changes. The retirement info is still in the lead, even more prominent than where you originally put it. The thing I said should be in the article rather than in the lead was the Australian wicket-keeping record when he also holds the world record. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, I actually did not use rollback ;) thanks though, I understand your point, and between 3 people we now have a very nice version.

I would appreciate if you maybe put a little note on my user page noting that I did not use rollback. Erick880 (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob Taylor
I think this was your article. It contained an error regarding Taylor's appearence in 1971. He was given a game, as was often the case, against NZ, having spent the tour playing in the up country games whilst Knott was the clear No.1 for the tests. The 97 was made at Adelaide and Taylor was not night watchman (1978-9 tour). See scorecard on cricketarchive.JimBakken (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Amendment.
I have amended small errors and a couple of little grammatical errors on a couple of your articles.JimBakken (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge Nobel Laureates
Stephen, I'm pretty new to Wiki, so I hope this is the right place to discuss an article with you! Concerning the Cambridge article in which you reverted one of my changes, specifically the number of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cambridge, I found conflicting information from multiple sources. I, hopefully, explained this on the Discussion page for that article. Any thoughts? I changed the article to say Columbia was the world leader in Nobel laureate affiliates, because that is what the Wikipedia article on that topic states. Ian Glenn (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Links
Thanks for pointing me in the correct direction Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Trainspotting Trivia
It had to be done. "XXX in fiction" is bad enough, I would love to see the back of those sections, but "XXX in trainspotting" is taking it too far. Sometimes I can't believe some editors... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done for re-removing. Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, I posted this in a discussion in Doctor Boogaloo's Talk as well. Perhaps we could continue there if you want to keep the discussion focussed? Anyway for now, this is what I have said - The relevance of the Southern Railway School's class goes beyond that of the 'trainspotter'. This factual entry is one that adds historical context to the entries of the school by the very fact that they were chosen at all. The schools were also consulted on the naming and therefore it was of importance to them. A number of the school's maintain certain vestiges of this episode, such as nameplates of the engines etc which further indicates the importance to the school. Also, by removing the entry altogether, with no attempt to integrate it elsewhere, reduces the possibility that someone will come across this fact at all and thus diminishes to an extent one of the aims of wikipedia and indeed encyclopaedias, to spread knowledge. One of the pleasures of reading any entry is tripping over other facts that point the reader in the direction of topics they otherwise would not have thought to explore. This applies to an encyclopaedia whether paper based or not. But it is perhaps even more pertinent in a non-paper based encyclopaedia such as wikipedia because jumping from topic to topic is so much easier and accessible. Granted, some people would not care to explore the topic of the school's class any further, but some would. Also, whilst some readers would not consider the naming of locomotives after the school an indication of their standing in the public perception at the time, others would and I would prefer to leave that to the reader.Kwib (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just responded to your comments on Doctor Boogaloo's Talk pageKwib (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alfonso RL
Dear Stephen, I am editing together with a group of friends from Cambridge, the article regarding the Cambridge University Technology and Enterprise Club (CUTEC). However, it seens to be written "as an advert". We have change it since last reviewed and still we have that tag associate to it. Please let me know which parts of it exactly you think that are an advert, because we are trying to be as neutral as possible, and all the facts in it are real and verificable.

Best regards,

Alfonso RL

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlecuona (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for your message, Arlecuona. I've replied at Talk:CUTEC. I think that's the best place in case other people want to comment too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot activity
I was going over the list of bots and noticed that has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval since this is a rather widely-posted message.  MBisanz  talk 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Blend
Please look up blend before you try to correct it. Portmanteau words are specific instances of such things, and have special rules about them. It would be very hard to accidentally create one, and they involve syllabillic sounding. You are confusing compounds, blends, and the rest as portmanteau, which is inaccurate. The reason why I stated that the page was "wrong" was from the fact that portmanteau bags were kept separate, since they are one and the same. That is how analogies work. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat that this distinction isn't borne out by the sources. Check the Punch quotation from 1896: it's the first known use of the word "brunch" and it's described as a "portmanteau word". Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First known use does not give the maker the right to determine its proper and true classification. That is up for a linguist. Blends as the source even states, its the common example of a blend. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are about to break 3RR and OR if you revert the Portmanteau page again. Lewis Carroll uses the term after a bag, and the word coined is based on that. By separating the two pages, you relying on OR, which goes against Wikipedia policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Stalking
You have followed my edits and have thus committed Wiki Stalking. Please reverse your edits and apologize before I am forced to report you. The edits are, by definition, correct, and they are blends. Your actions are in violation of WP:HARASS, and there is only one option for you, which is to apologize and revert yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not throw words around like stalking and harrassment. Making such allegations is extremely serious and inappropriate. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxbridge
An editor has nominated Oxbridge, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adelaideovalscoreboard.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Adelaideovalscoreboard.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bohinj Lake/Lake Bohinj
I've moved the article not because of the AE/BE, but because in Slovene the lake is not called (Jezero) Bohinj, but Bohinjsko (of Bohinj, pertaining to Bohinj). --Eleassar my talk 11:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, Eleassar. But I still think that Lake Bohinj is the correct translation into English. Bohinj Lake just sounds very awkward.


 * Actually, I'm not sure I'm right about American English. They put "River" after the name (e.g., Mississippi River) but I think they put "Lake" before the name (e.g., Lake Ontario).


 * Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't know what sounds awkward; but I really don't see a good reason to call the lake 'Bohinj', if it's native name is not Bohinj. --Eleassar my talk 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case we should find out what English-language references call the lake, although I think that "Lake Bohinj" is the standard English name. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Slovenia Tourist Board call it Lake Bohinj &mdash; see http://www.slovenia.info/?_ctg_kraji=2507. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not always. Even on the page you provided it is written also as Bohinj lake. --Eleassar my talk 13:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC consensus
Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Web Analytics
You state that WP:EL is clear on the list of blogs?

What about this saying: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". I used some hours to collect this list of blogs from authorative writers... all of them well know and read by memebers of the practicing community.

Who is Stephen Turner anyhow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.26.170 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge University Wikiproject
Stephen,

Thanks for your advice about stub types - I didn't know that, and have responded to your comments at my talk page.

Are you still active in the University of Cambridge Wikiproject? If you look at the history, you'll see that I removed an "inactive" sign placed on it by a Bot, so I'm not sure whether it's fizzled out or not.

Andrew. A.C. Norman (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not sure it ever fizzled in. I do keep an eye on several of the University of Cambridge articles, and I would contribute to WikiProject discussions if it ever got going, but there's never really been any activity on the project page.


 * Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Dear Stephen, Sincerely, thanks for reverting the POV. Sad day none-the-less, best wishes, Graham. --Graham Colm Talk 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Wranglers FLC
I've nominated List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge for Featured List status as I've managed to get it complete. Your feedback at Featured list candidates/List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge would be welcome. Mrh30 (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List of World XI ODI cricketers at FLRC
This article, which you significantly contributed to, has been nominated as a Featured list removal candidate. Reveiwers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Date-autoformatting removal script

 * P.S. I saw your "Pet hates" section and thought that this might be useful to you:

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. I'll have a look at that some time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)