User talk:Thomas Peardew

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Thomas Peardew, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &oelig; &trade; 08:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Hi Zhua61: thanks for the welcome message: it got me moving sufficiently to put in a few lines onto the user page you helpfully created for me. I have been editing Wiki articles for a while now, so it must have been about time. Thanks for the guidance on Chinese pronunciation too. And can I just say that there's a spelling trap there: it's "pronounce" with an "o" between the "n" and the "u" but "pronunciation" without one (and they are pronounced differently, too).Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek Pronouciation
In Modern Chinese pinyin, the 'ang' sound is pronounced similar to the 'ong' (as in 'tongs') sound in English. 'Jiong' is similar to how it is pronounced in Chinese. This goes for other characters too.  Zhua 61  21:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colfe's School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Socialists (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Walpole
I have Walpole up for peer review, and if you have time and disposition to look in, I shall be in your debt. Quite understand if not, naturally. – Tim riley (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Ambassadors (Holbein)
Bit of a dumb hypothesis then, as one can't see it from the left of the painting. Or is it suggesting that people walked up the stairs past the painting on their left and then glanced back over their left shoulder? Oh, and where's the source for that "hypothesis"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have trodden on any toes there, but I recall seeing the picture many years ago and being told by a National Gallery pundit that it would have been hung above a staircase, one leading up into a large chamber: so as you come up the stairs with the picture on your left, the correct view of the skull would be the first thing you'd make out. It's worth pointing out that the anamorphic view works just as well when looking from the left and below the picture upwards (try it), as it does when looking from the right and above the picture downwards - and pictures are usually hung at a height rather than at the ground level you'd need to look down on the skull. I'll look for a proper source, but I don't feel very strongly either way. Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a reference to viewing from below: http://lavieboheme2010.blogspot.fr/2010/11/hans-holbein-younger.html (although the author also mentions looking from the right). And here's another, more detailed: http://tomclarkblog.blogspot.fr/2010/11/mystery-of-anamorphic-skull-in.html. I think I'd be tempted to leave the word left stand, but also add the alternative. Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Tom Pear-doo... Thanks for your reply. I have no particular axe to grind. I was only going along with the explanation given by Waldemar Januszczak on BBC's The Culture Show. And it wasn't easy for him - he had to resort to using his phone with his arm at full stretch! Yes, in that first source Annette Freeman says explicitly: "you can only see the skull in proper perspective if you look at it from the extreme right of the picture" and Tom Clarke says: "stationing oneself at an oblique angle in relation to the right side of the picture plane.." (although that second source is just a blogsite, so not suitable as a source). Of course, they have to all say this because it's hung at normal eye level in the National Gallery and it's not possible to approach it as if on a staircase. It's impractical (maybe impossible) to try and view it from low on the left. I agree there have to be two viewpoints from which to see the skull, but it's only facing the viewer when viewed from the right. If Holbein had intended the main effect to occur from below left, why did he not paint the skull facing that way? And yet guests would almost always see it for the first time if climbing, not descending, a staircase? It seems we don't even know who the painting was painted for, let alone where it was intended to be hung. It's all a bit of a mystery. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the skull from the left of the picture, it is facing towards me. The back of the skull is to the right of the picture. And (although this is original research) I don't suppose many Tudor viewers of the picture were equipped with cell-phones.

Statements that are clearly wrong - such as that Annette Freeman quote - remind me of the saying about the thirteenth stroke of the clock. It casts doubt on the previous twelve. I appreciate that a whole raft of theories about lines on the picture require you to look along the skull from the right. But then aren't ley lines interesting too? Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll need to check that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Norman Josiffe
Alas, we don't yet seem to have Category:Players of the pink oboe? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed not. A commenter in the Guardian's review of A Very English Scandal suggests it might have been WWII forces slang, as the Goon Show (on 12 January 1959) managed to get an episode titled "Who is Pink Oboe" past the BBC "censors". [| You can find it listed here]. Thomas Peardew (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Cyril Burt‎
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://drgeoffnutrition.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/sir-cyril-burt-1883-1971-and-the-heritability-of-intelligence-debate/. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Hello, I'm Moxy. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. As per WP:Circular can't use a wiki for a source Moxy 🍁 15:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Self-published source
Alan O'B isn't very active on here so it would be better to leave a message on his talk page and the system will send him an email alert. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Alan's book gives his e-mail address and I'll get in touch with him direct. Thanks. Thomas Peardew (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Anne Marie Imafidon article
Bonjour, M.Perdu. I noticed your comment (made last year) about the subject of the above article. I spent a fair amount of time editing this article almost a year ago and today noticed a recent unsigned edit so came back to it. I must admit, the oddity about the lack of an undergraduate degree still bothers me a bit. In the Jim al Khalili interview (referred to in article) Dr Imafidon refers to her degree as a four year combined programme, which I am fairly confident does not exist. I wonder if she may have a first degree from another institution, although some of the references cited say that she attended Oxford from age 15? I do think this is more relevant now, since Dr Imafidon is Chancellor of a university (Glasgow Caledonian). If you have a moment, you might want to visit the article talk page to see if you have any follow from my own thoughts. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This link gives a little more detail but it is still noticeably vague about her actual degree. Oxford is a collegiate university and Imafidon says she spent four years at Keble. When awarding her an honourary fellowship, Keble says she matriculated (ie was admitted as a student) in 2006. Assuming she matriculated in the autumn term (Michaelmas) she'd have been just 16 rather than 15 (her DoB being 27 July 1990).
 * If you look for the masters degree in question, it appears to be the Oxford MSc in Mathematics and Foundations of Computer Science, but that is (in 2024, anyway) a 12 month course. Entry to the course requires - normally - a first class undergraduate degree "with honours in a subject with significant mathematical content".
 * So it looks as if she possibly had an undergraduate degree from Keble, but in what subject, and what honours, there's no reliable source.
 * I wouldn't want to blame anyone for their choice of parents, but her father appears to have made various false claims about his own connection with Oxford and Keble College. Thomas Peardew (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Oddly, Companies House gives the D.O.B as June 1989; that would make Dr Imafidon 17 at matriculation, and not 15 as claimed in various sources. The same source says that Stemettes, upon which the nine honorary doctorates, the MBE, the Keble honorary fellowship and University vice-chancellorship is presumably based, has no employees and was on the verge of compulsory wind-up last year. I must say I'm finding the lack of reference anywhere to a first degree, along with what might appear to be curated inconsistencies, quite perplexing. An Oxford First is certainly more prestigious than a taught MSc, which makes it all the stranger that it's not mentioned in any of the detail available at all the websites. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the subject could clear all this up? Emmentalist (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I can add much to this, except to say that the GRO index shows what is presumably Imafidon's birth in 1989, which is consistent with what you found at Companies House. I note that she has several Companies House listings, under two slightly different versions of her name, all with June 1989 as her birthdate.
 * The GRO shows the registration district for her birth as Barking and Dagenham, Register number 789 Vol 11 page 290. This link is the source.
 * One other internet location gives a date of birth of 24 June 1990: I wonder if her actual date of birth is 24 June 1989? This press release gives the date she graduated from Oxford as 23 June 2010, which could mean that she was still 20 at the time: that might have been the day before her 21st birthday. Thomas Peardew (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, again. Very helpful. I'm confident of the 1989 birthdate now; as you suggest I think it's likely 24 June of that year. I found a reference to the charity Stemettes, which is a real org. I think the companies house vehicle is likely simply one through which Dr Imafidou is paid. The press release is mainly nonsense; it's exactly the kind of unreliable thing associated in non-deprecated sources with Dr Imafidou's father. In the absence of clarity on Dr Imafidou's degree/s, I think the article is probably best left as it is. It's not ideal, since all the specific information about it is unreliable e.g. direct entry undergraduate programme leading to MSc but no bachelors degree? I do still find it perplexing that Dr Mafidou herself appears to make that same claim in quite specific terms (Jim al Khalili reference). Perhaps Oxford offered a four year direct entry MSc in 2010? Anyway, that's probably enough for now! Thanks so much for your help! Emmentalist (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I found the degree! It's a four year Oxford University degree called MMathsCompSci. Undergraduates enter as normal and can leave with a BA after 3 years or an MMathsCompSci after 4. Hurrah! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)