This is an archive of past discussions on my talk page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have nominated List of London Underground stations for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Simply south (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim

Thanks for putting LBTH back where I thought it should be. I was a bit amazed at the move. It will be interesting to see if discussion ensues: I really cannot see that we could possibly do this unless it was agreed to abandon the pattern for every London borough - which I do not see as a likely outcome.

On the other hand, I am considering travelling to the area known (and indeed loved) as E1 nXX (remainder blanked for security reasons) there to challenge you to a bout of fisticuffs over -ize spellings. I know I plough a sometimes-lonely furrow here, but I really don't see "criticize" as an AmE spelling and "criticise" as its correct BrE equivalent. I like the Oxford-ish view that "criticise" is recent and Frenchified and "criticize" is more betterer and, like, older, and, er, stuff. I used to typeset for an academic publisher and, my word, they were hot on this. Are you about to burst my bubble in this matter? I do hope not! :) Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On the first point I doubt it will happen because there's too many names where "London Borough of X" is needed to distinguish from the individual place - look at what Islington, Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich or Lewisham refer to.

~ize vs ~ise is an old debate but the origins of a spelling don't make much difference, it's day to day use. "~ize" largely survives only because of the eccentric position of the OED (and publishers who follow them) in not reflecting the evolution of spelling but by and large "~ise" has become the standard British spelling and "~ize" an Americanised one (hence the joke "Why isn't Americanised spelt with a 'z'?"). Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm thought you might say that ... I have been miseducated, d*mmit ... goes off sulking. Oh but hang on, not till you tell me the punch-line! :) Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's on of those mysteries along with "Why is dyslexia such a difficult word to spell?" "Why isn't phonetic spelt the way it's pronounced?" and "Why is stutter so difficult to say?" Timrollpickering (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, got you, thanks! On dyslexia, I used to work for a local government body not a billion miles from here and they did, honestly, really, once produce a "Guide to Council Services in Whereverbury" and it actually did, to our great amazement and amusement, really have "dylsexia" in the index. Genuine accident rather then Billy Liar-like escaped joke, one assumes, but even so ... magnificent. Have a nice weekend Tim, cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And I think, and hope, that you are quite right about the boroughs - I feel that it is not, and should not be, doable. cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Rehoboth Carpenter family - We have surveyed, we have compromised, we have repeatedly asked to user Iwanafish to communicate. He refuses with his snide comments and reversions to non-wiki versions. We have warned him "offically" a lot more than 3 times. Repeatedly, we have asked for mediation, we have asked for help and I do not know who else to ask. Can you pass this up the chain of editors?

User Iwanafish continues to disrupt and vandalize this page and it has spread his behavior to other pages. John Carpenter (bishop) John Carpenter, town clerk of London What else can we do but shut down the articles involved and provide warnings that when they are restored by user Iwanafish that they are garbage? Has wikipedia lost the ability to police itself? I am beginning to think this is a hopeless cause where such bullies can inflict such damage to wikipedia. What else can be done?

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Qmulcrest2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tim

I've been trying to tidy up the article on Thomas Nossiter (see correspondence here and here). If I read the history correctly you seem to be responsible for adding Nossiter to the category Alumni of the University of London Exeternal Programme (later changed to System). I am wondering on what basis you added him to that category. I believe that he was involved in the External System, but I don't think that that is the same as being an alumnus of it.

Best wishes, --Oxonian2006 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't recall for sure but I think he was on a list of alumni when the category was populated. He's probably more accurately placed in Category:People associated with the University of London External System. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion here to which I wish to draw your attention. This is a friendly notice under the auspices of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tim, hi! You will probably want to know about the successor to IND/DEM and UEN. I've sandboxed the article and it'll go live tonight. I'm writing it with my hands over my eyes peeking thru mi fingers: some of those people are kinda scary. The new group is due to be launched 1 July 2009. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's gone live. It's called Europe of Freedom and Democracy. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you've done quite a bit of work on the article, City of London School in the past. I thought that I should point out to you that I have started an article improvement drive on the article to try and get it up to good article status. The article has recently been peer reviewed at Wikipedia:Peer review/City of London School/archive1. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article is currently undergoing a GA review at Talk:City of London School/GA1. Since you have done some work on the article, can I ask whether you know anything about the claim that the school was the first to teach English Lit and whether it had anything to do with Abbott? I haven't found anything related to this claim in my research. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pass on English Lit - in my day Chemistry was the subject that that claim was always made about. There is a book of the history of the school that I can look it up in at some point. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've heard about that chemistry claim but it seems to be even more unverifiable than the English Lit claim. Please feel free to add things to the article if you have anything you want to add. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to agree that Sutton & Mole Valley Lines falls under the fifth definition of railway line (an article useful only for flagging a confusion.) After much sandbox tidying of Template:Sutton & Mole Valley Lines I concluded that the subject was merely an editor's construct. The article says:
"Confusingly, all of the commuter services run by Southern which terminate or call at Sutton are, regardless of origin or destination, branded as Sutton and Mole Valley Line services."
which seems to show confusion in the originating editor's mind. The line with SWT services clearly has nothing to do with the other lines which have been stretched to central London. The trouble with much WP railway matter (why pick on that?) is that it is written by "enthusiasts" who "know" the folklore but never find the facts. The article is well qualified for carving up and deletion. --SilasW (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion I think is a step too far. There is a defined "Sutton and Mole Valley" area wit a distinct timetable but it's Southern only and constitutes Mitcham Eastfields or Waddon to Horsham or Epsom Downs - see this map. That appears to correspond to the timetable which has includes some details of South West Trains services that run over part of the lines (and as I said there have been times when getting the SWT timetable at those stations has been absolutely impossible). How much this constitutes a set of "Lines" is utterly unclear but the S&MV term has currency that would support some article. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What is going on with this IP reverting yesterday and today?. lord or baron ? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Someone who doesn't understand the information they're adding - e.g. assuming hereditary peerages are the same as life or not understanding the correct title form. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Has it been discussed with him? It looks to me like a little repetitive edit war, he was doing exactly the same yesterday. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

I think others have raised it with him but the user appears to be on multiple IPs making it hard to track discussion down. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we should look at the situation, if he won't talk, he shouldn,t edit. (imo) (Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

I was coming here for the same thing. Is there anything that can be done to curb this? I feel like a WikiStalker by having to revert all his edits. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There must be something to do, you shouldn't have to follow him round reverting him, he made about 50 edits yesterday, all similar and all reverted! I have tried talking to him and left messages. I will keep my eye out for him and give him another chance to talk about if. If not, well, it is quite disruptive. If he continues we might report him to Admin. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Isn't Timrollpickering an admin? Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but getting adminny in areas where you've been involved in content disputes past and present (and I have had clashes with people on the correct form of peers' titles before) is not a way to solve anything. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the user User_talk:90.203.62.17 in question is starting to talk . could you go there and explain to him what the problem is. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article Unity Party (United Kingdom) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unknown political party.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fences&Windows 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Back in 2005, you argued to delete this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn. The result was keep, but four years later(!), I believe she is still not notable, and have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Most that are left are to the politician, I already fixed the ones to his son and to the Scots and the hockey player. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot stem from a template that will take time to filter through to all articles but once they go then the rest should be easy to fix. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider redirecting this article to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2006 right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC) nevermind, another editor !voted. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted the heading big, to underline the momment. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I know but it causes problems with the threading and can also create a very large section. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Season_6B

I've added a lengthy explanation of my role in the creation of the Season 6B piece in the Discontinuity Guide

Regards

David Mantell 84.71.83.80 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

...That we only have four degrees of separation between us. I was looking at my friends' facebook page and moved from one person to another and I saw your name. It took me a minute, but I remembered where I'd seen it before. It was quite an interesting find on my homework break. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And I received an email re a school friend, and there on the list of addressees is T.C.R-P. of qmul. Occuli (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, shall we? U-Mos (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Qmulcrest2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 00:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, a looooong time ago, you nommed Neville Chamberlain for PR and got no response. I've picked up the fallen torch and revamped the article and got it passed for GA. It is up for peer review again, here. Your comments welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Social democracy is socialism... Its an ideology within socialism... The Socialist project works on communist, socialist, social democracit topics among others. Social democracy is sosialism, just another way to intepret it... The SDP page calls them; "social democracy", which is sosialism... Please revert your edits (or i'll to it).. There is no reason why the WP:SOCIALISM should not participate in the development of these pages.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). --TIAYN (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

From Sam Blacketer (from the talk page) "If you're referring to the party of that name founded in 1981, they were social democrats and not socialists. See Talk:Liberal Democrats and also Talk:Social Democratic Party (UK). The previous party of that name which adopted it in 1909 was a socialist party - see Social Democratic Federation. My advice to you is that it's important to look closely at political ideology in the context of the country and the time, rather than looking for linguistic coincidences which are apt to confuse - a case in point being the National Socialist Party."

They are a part of the project. The are social democrats, meaning sosialists. Just a tip, read the socialist page. --TIAYN (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, the import of my comments was to disagree with you, TIAYN, not to agree. The SDP of 1981 and its continuity groups were founded so that their members could leave the broad socialist movement. Not all people who term themselves 'social democrats' accept that this makes them socialists and we should respect their self-definition. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are social democrats, according to you they obviously don't want to be called that. But the fact is still their, they officially call themselves "social democrats", which means even if they don't like it, they are a part of the WikiProject Socialism. This project was created to help articles related to anykind of socialism movement, this party has officially called themselves social democrats according to wikipedia. If they are not fine, but the matter still stand, they officially say their official ideology is social democracy.. If they don't want to be a part of the project they should change their official ideology. --TIAYN (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The first UK Politics newsletter is currently available at WP:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Newsletter. All participants of the project have been subscribed to receive copies of the newsletter. You can unsubscribe simply by removing your name from the Subscription list. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've nominated Rise of Neville Chamberlain for FA. It seems to have gone a bit moribund and I'd be grateful if you would review it. Don't forget to mention that you were one of the peer reviewers before the article was split. I hated to split it, but I would have gotten tremendous grief at FAC and when in Rome you pay Roman charges.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It did pass, but now Neville Chamberlain is at FAC. Be grateful for any comments, as per the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tim

As one of Wikipedia's more noted political experts I wonder whether you can confirm what I believe, which is that Dennis Skinner is not a member of the Privy Council. This notion has crept into both Dennis Skinner and The_Right_Honourable#Use_of_the_honorific (which I have amended to give Ann Widdecombe as the example). He has never been a member of the Cabinet, and as a republican he would not accept membership as an honour, so I cannot think why he would be a member or why he would be styled 'The Right Honourable'. The editor responsible for Dennis Skinner is refusing to respond to my query. I would just change it but wanted to make certain that there is no chance that since Debrett's People of Today was published in January 2009 he has been sworn of the Council.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK Skinner isn't. He's always declined honours and the like. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He isn't in the list of Privy Council members. Road Wizard (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timrollpickering. Thanks for taking the time to reply with a useful lead regarding the cryptic link for Athlone Press. I have now added a brief sentence to the history section of the University of London article, using the citation provided by you, and another citation for the eventual acquisition by Continuum publishing. I have also amended the redirect to go to Continuum International Publishing Group, where it makes sense. There is no point in anything pointing to the UoL article unless someone creates a substantive section on Athlone Press. But if that never happens, the current arrangement solves the problem of the previously cryptic link, courtesy of your reply.Wotnow (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Sun(newspaper). Since you had some involvement with the The Sun(newspaper) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). JHunterJ (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim

Your proposed speedy move of Category:Skye Villages to Category:Skye villages was contested, so I have removed it from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, and listed it for a full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25#Category:Skye_Villages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Timrollpickering! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,099 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the list:

1. Oliver Napier - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Séan Neeson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Seamus Close - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Kieran McCarthy - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Dennis Rogan, Baron Rogan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Gerald Pillay - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Timrollpickering/Archive 10! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As an experienced and prolific Wikipedian, I wonder what your take is on this debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heenal Raichura. It is argued that Dr Raichura's having been the subject of at least eight media reports over a period of less than five months makes her sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. This is not my understanding of notability guidelines. However, as a veteran Wikipedian you may be in a better position to clarify the disputed points. Thanks.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.