Do you have a source for the meaning of "Compo"? Bluap 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Roy Clarke said it in an interview for one of the clipshows but I can't remember which one it was - does that help?
Hi. I see you've added population for the County of London Met Boroughs back to 1801. Not sure if this is the right place, as the boroughs were only created in 1900. I presume this is the population of single or grouped parishes? If this is the case, then we can probably move them to pages such as Hackney (parish) or Stoke Newington (parish). Also, we could do with a citation: Vision of Britain doesn't go back that far, AFAIK, so it must be out of a book or document? Thanks. Lozleader 08:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's from (fx ruffles papers on desk to find old red covered book he got the figures from) the Statistical Abstract for London, 1901, compiled by the Statistical Officer of the London County Council, Vol. IV. Part IV on page 47 is headed "Statistics relating to Metropolitan Boroughs". The table is a bit complicated because it tries to take account of the minor boundary changes in 1900 in terms of 1891 and 1901 censuses, but beforehand, there is a note on the top of the table which says "The figures .. are approximate only, the population of the fringes, transferred from one parish to another under the London Government Act of 1899, not being taken into account". Then there are notes at the bottom for various larger bits: Battersea included Penge (which is actually miles away) in 1801 and 1811, Holborn includes Furnival's Inn from the City. The 1891/1901 figures which take account of the boundary changes are usually quite small. Only Paddington has a big difference, due largely to Kensal Town (this wasn't the only change though): 117,846 on old boundaries, 135,955 on new ones. It gets a bit more complicated in 1821 when there were 526 "local militia" not assigned to any borough, and in 1841 when there were 3,090 "police on duty" not assigned to any borough.
On Stoke Newington and South Hornsey, I'm reading through the other bits of the book and there are different statistics for the parish of Stoke Newington: In 1891 the Parish, on its actual boundaries under the 1855 Metropolis Management Act, had 30,936 people, while the statistic given for the Borough is 47,828. The figures for Hackney in 1891 are identical (198,606), but I think South Hornsey was actually administratively outside the County of London and the Metropolitan Board area and under the control of Middlesex. It was, of course, an exclave between Hackney and Stoke Newington parishes which was transferred to Stoke Newington Borough in 1900.
Ah, yes, thought so - looking at these old maps, it's not always easy to tell where later boundaries intersect with earlier ones! What is the best way to reference the source of the population figures? Sam Blacketer 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've put the data in wiki tables on Metropolitan Borough of Hackney and Metropolitan Borough of Islington, I also added the area and population figures for the modern boroughs (converting the km2 back to acres!) for comparison. (look at the km page for conversion, on UK pages, there should be SI units). I think that provides an interesting comparison, as it shows the desperate overcrowding in 1901.
By adding these stats, you are adding a rod to beat your back with, as some bright spark will ask for the figures from 1901 to 1965! In these contexts, these are interesting figures. Cheers. Kbthompson 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you're right with the enlarged figure for Islington? Is that not the area for the London Borough of Islington, the 1965 creation which amalgamated the Metropolitan Borough of Islington and the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury? The 'Vision of Britain' website seems to be a good source for 1901-1965 figures, although I think I've seen them in 'London Statistics' published by the LCC. Sam Blacketer 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
He also divided the rest of the Metropolitan Police District into an Inner Third Ring (including places like Croydon, West Ham, Tottenham, Bromley and Richmond) and an Outer Third Ring (inclued places like Hampton, Staines, Barnet, Cheshunt, Orpington, Epsom & Ewell) By 1931 he notes that more Londoners lived in the outer rings (and thus outside the county) than in it. Lozleader 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dunno, it depends on the amount of material. How much can be said about the Strand or Plumstead District Board of Works? No point creating a lot of stubs; the single parish vestries can be served by pages such as Hackney (parish) or Stoke Newington (parish).
Lozleader 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Heya, when moving an article, you should also correct its redirects to avoid double redirects. You can see the redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/Wyn Roberts, Baron Roberts of Conwy. Thanks and greetings - PS.: For this time I have done it for you ~~ Phoe talk 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ~~
Hi Sam, well done adding MPs by Parliament categories to a whole lot of MPs. I just thought I should point out that there is also a category for the parliament which was elected in 2005: Category:UK MPs 2005-, which is also needed for some of the articles you edited.
There is no problem adding that category later; I just thought that you might not be aware of its existence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your link and information on the spelling of Steven Wright's name on my Talk page. I agree that since there is now a statement from Suffolk Constabulary that includes the "Steven" spelling then that is the one we should stick with. Until now I thought it best to go with the version as stated in more reliable media sources, but perhaps they are just as fallible as any other source. I know my brother (Steven) has spent a lifetime pointing out the correct spelling of his name to anyone who dares get it wrong. Fanx 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
'Twas hardly gross vandalism. Indeed the context *anything* could be put there and still make sense *nod* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.94.217 (talk • contribs)
Hi, I'm here to thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page. So thanks! Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I explained on the talk pages, and with the edits.--E tac 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh and look on the talk pages, most people seem to agree, it is just a minority of people hellbent on having pictures of dicks and vaginas in there for whatever there own sick reasons may be. I am not advocating censorship, but for the purpose of an encyclopedia, an illustartion could provide the exact same info, without the need to be as graphic or potentially offensive. --E tac 12:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
-- tariqabjotu 15:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, I'm not really interested in that cocktail debate, just didn't want to deal with it in MFD ;) — xaosflux Talk 03:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
— ERcheck (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the write-up; I'll publish it tomorrow. Feel free to write other articles for the Signpost in future weeks if you see something that you think should be covered; occasionally if there's something I feel should be covered, I'll make a note of it in the newsroom. Again, thanks for the help. Ral315 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (second nomination). This was closed as speedy keep under criterion for speedy deletion G5 as a page created by a banned user, and its content deleted. You may or may not want to contribute to the new discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination). This message is being given to all users - except proven sockpuppets and those who have already appeared at the new Afd- who contributed in the original discussion. --Robdurbar 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, in my reverting of User:Arserapist's vandalism on User talk:Esurnir I reverted your edit; there was no way to manipulate Undo or anything. You may want to go back and repost it for him to see. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW thanks for cleaning my page ;). I think arserapist is the same guy that vandalised you. -- Esurnir 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I have replied on my talk to your note abour Rolf Dudley-Williams, but forgot to say what I really meant to say: cograts on the great work that your are checking the MP by Parl categories.
Trying to complete them (as you are doing) was one of the uses I had in mind when I created those categories, partly so that they could be used for checking the accuracy of the MPs by Parliament lists. I did that for some of the later lists of MPs: parse the list, feed it into WP:AWB, and ask it to skip any articles already categorised by that parliament, then it howls when it finds one which isn't. That was very useful in identifying glitches (some missing articles, other disambiguation problems).
Do you use WP:AWB? It has all sorts of intersting applications for this sort of task. I'd love a dedicated bot to do this cross-checking and report any glitches, but I'm not a good enough programmer to contemplate trying to make one :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Upps, it seems I have contributed to an earlier version, this wasn't thought so. Thanks for the revert. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ~~
Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Edward Thomas Bishop, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add ((hangon))
on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Chris 73 | Talk 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you probably added the AfD notice while i was deleting the page. If you want, I can restore it, but otherwise I just mark it as speedy delete on the AfD. Hope this is OK -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This user has continued vandalizing Marston's article even after your last warning.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 22:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
nice cat maaaaaaaaaaaaaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzy rick (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam, you might want to add this guy to your top 10 list of earliest serving MPs. He became an MP in 1951. Best wishes. Dovea 15:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
How am I supposed to add information about Scott Wilson to Wikipedia? Can I request that someone else adds it? Many other civili engineering consultancies have a presence on Wikipedia detailing them, how are they able to gain a presence on the site, yet I can put up information on Scott Wilson. Everything that I wrote this time round was completely factual and in no way advertising, endorsing etc.....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottwilsonplc (talk • contribs)
--Savidan 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Former MP Tony Colman of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
May be I have to file a warning at talk:Parliament of the United Kingdom for possible violation of the arbcom decision. Andries 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that the London Gazette does in fact own the .org.uk domain as well as the .co.uk domain names as far as I know. I certainly can see no difference. [2]! Mduparte 14:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-- ALoan (Talk) 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah I thought it was after he left the Commons. As a rule we only put them on if they actually fight an election as a knight. If they are actually a bt. when they're in the commons then its a 50/50 call, so quite happy if you want to reverse :) Cheers Galloglass 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You're certainly welcome to write the story, it would be good to have coverage of that. --Michael Snow 18:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
--Majorly (o rly?) 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I was aware that Baxter died some time before the general election, but it is still useful to link to the general election as this is when his successor was elected. The article states clearly he didn't live to see it so I don't think anyone would be confused. --Berks105 16:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam,
May I offer a suggestion on your Signpost story? My edits were not made to reverse the essay; instead, they were made in good faith, fixing grammatical errors, clarifying the essay's assumptions (a feature that User:Worldtraveller has incorporated into the present version) and pointing out mitigating factors that, yes, limited/qualified the conclusions of the essay but at the same time made them more NPOV and scholarly. None of User:Worldtraveller's conclusions were reversed, and none of his data or arguments were removed, as you may check by comparing the versions. Many editors, such as User:Alabamaboy and User:Ta bu shi da yu, felt that my version made User:Worldtraveller's point stronger by being more balanced and less polemic. Unfortunately, User:Worldtraveller did not view my edits as an improvement and did not want to allow any mitigation of his arguments, which provoked the subsequent fight over WP:OWN and WP:SOAPBOX from which I've abstained since my blocking. I think that User:Worldtraveller might agree with this description of the events. I've tried to set up a neutral, good-faith evaluation essay at WP:EVAL. Much of the material at WP:WINF was also written by me, however not with the purpose of that counter-polemic; it was moved there by User:Worldtraveller himself. Willow 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
One last point, I'm a "she", not a "he". Thanks for fixing that! :) Willow 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Umm, "her own essay"? I'm really sorry to be a bother. Willow 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you've done a fair and good job on that article. I've added a note to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, it's important to, when referring to the Internet, capitalize it as such. There are many internets out there, but the internet you and I are talking on right now is the Internet, hence the capitalization. An internet is a generic term describing any large inter-networked net. The capitalization matters. I know it's a very minor nitpick, but I just thought you might want to know the distinction. --Cyde Weys 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your change to Wikipedia:Categorization of people. See Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Ordering and sort-keys for recent discussion of this. I'm not saying I object to the idea, just that it needs more consensus. Regards, jnestorius(talk) 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for recomending my "a nice cup of tea and a sit down". I have taken many blows from vandals, i have had everybody and there brother complain about deleted pages and I am ok with that! I guess I just felt like people were assuming bad faith, when I myself was probably assuming bad faith in the assumoption that they were (If that makes any sense). After my cup of delicious tea, all is well! Thanks again, it is much aprpeciated.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
I, Chrislk02, award you this barnstar for calming down with the recomended cup of tea when I got a little heated at WP:RFCN. It was very much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
--ALoan (Talk) 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your work on disambiguating synthetic. Please note that I've added one item that had been forgotten: Synthetic language. That's the intended target in most linguistics pages, like Modern Greek grammar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam. I noticed that you submitted Geekbot2000 to RFCN... you do realise that you're supposed to give them a chance to agree to change it without going through RFCN? Proto ► 07:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
--ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Under what auspices is this being done? Pls see WP:London discussion, Cybersquaters? Cheers Kbthompson 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, a Labour Fanboy. I should have known one of you would come crawling out from underneath your rock as soon as I posted that bit about Paul Clark. Still, you didn't vote against him, and I take it you don't actually know an awful lot about him, or what a waste of oxygen he really is. Still, next election he'll be out of a job anyway! Happy days.
TTFN, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dav3j (talk • contribs)
Why, am I wrong? I'm sure the world isn't that eager to know anything about him, hence the article bears little practical value. Dav3j 12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting - if these articles get up to 1,500 characters, please would you consider nominating them for the Main Page at T:TDYK? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering, well, see section for small note (as usual on EL,SA talk page). Simply south 12:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello :) I'm fairly new to editing, and recently noticed a dispute between two users (ElenaZam and citylightsgirl), specifically regarding subjects Neil Clark and Oliver Kamm. I noticed a message you had placed on the talk page for Neil Clark stating that the issue was raised on the Administrator Noticeboard (incidents), however, I can not seem to find it. I'm sure that this is a navigational error on my part. I have no involvement in this issue whatsoever, I'm just curious to see how content disputes are handled, and thought that this might be a good example to "watch and learn" from. If you would not be able to help me understand the issue at hand and process for any reason, can you direct me to someone that can? Thank you. Vendetta 11:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Otho Prior-Palmer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add ((hangon))
on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sam, I've worked with this young lad a little on editing wikipedia, and I think that it comes down to maturity. Patrick, from what I've read, is a youth editor (under 10). Unfortunately for Patrick, there are too many lessions not yet learned that only come with age. I regret seeing the lad get blocked, he has the potential for being a skilled editor. Just thought I'd pass that bit of intel along, perhaps it will explain a lot. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)