User talk:Keith D/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

Star Carr

Hi Keith D,

Thanks for noticing my edits on the Star Carr article. Just wanted to clarify; why is it better to have a book reference to Scarre with less information? I know I'm new, so I looked at the referencing guidelines and they seemed to indicate that standard Harvard-style referencing was recommended for books? So I know for the future - what's the rationale here? Cheers PatHadley (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have not changed the reference just moved the book information down to the bibliography section, for consistency. Scarre was already mentioned in the article, I just took the title out of the references section as it appeared in full in the bibliography section. Referencing is done in different ways in different articles and everyone has their own favourite way of doing it, just use the one that already exists in the article for consistency. If you are creating from scratch then you can go with the method that you like. Do not think there will ever be consensus on which way is best! Keith D (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok cool. I get it. I hadn't properly noticed the bibliography session. I'll get page numbers for the Clark quotes next time I have the book in front of me. I'll probably be gradually updating (hopefully improving) the Star Carr article (and some other archaeology articles) in the near future. Any comments from someone as experienced as yourself are very welcome. PatHadley (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I should spot new changes to the article as it is one of the Yorkshire articles that is on the project watchlist. Keith D (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Feckenham article

Thanks for adding Feckenham Forest to Warwickshire project. You assessed as 'start' class - better than 'stub' ;) any feedback would be really appreciated. Thank you Jim Killock (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I am just doing a tagging run and picking up articles under the county category. Just had a quick look and the article could do with co-ordinates adding and probably a map of the area producing. The lead needs some context for example add England so that those who do not know UK geography can have some idea of where you are talking about. The King is mentioned in a number of places but probably may be better to use the crown as it could be the queen and it leaves you wondering if a specific King in meant. Keith D (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Shahid Malik

Hi dave

If you look at what initiated the issue you will find it was ill-informed and factually incorrect. This was then developed further by shakehandsman. He and I have had an exchange and I have been very fair and have given facts. I have since had no response from the other party and hence I do not believe there is any further legitimate issue.

Hi keith
it was DAVIDBrave btw. sorry i'm new to this. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVIDBrave (talk • contribs) 03:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There are several issues identified on the talk page that need addressing. The tag should remain until these have been addressed. It should be removed by someone independent of the two parties involved unless you both agree to it being removed. Keith D (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

commons : Humber estuary/River humber

Hello, eg when categorising at commons could you use "Humber estuary" instead of "River humber" - so that there is only one of the two category being populated thanks. I am moving the remainder of images to the "Humber estuary" category whilst categorising. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Also I think you are overcategorising on some images eg [1] "hedon haven" is a subcat of "paull" and I didn't see any fields or footpaths in the image. my edit . Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For linear features that cover several places I am leaving the location category in place so that you get all of the images in the place together rather than have to filter out from the sub-cat. If the sub-cat is totally in the place then the location can can be removed from the parent. Heven Haven covers a number of parishes thus the location cat on the parent is still in place. Keith D (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That's all great but why don't you read the instructions - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories#For_more_appropriate_categorization - it's basically the same as categorisation on wikipedia, - I'm thinking of this sentence in particular Generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic
What it doesn't mention is that if you populate a category with many images you dont see all the subcategories, leaving all the images in a higher level category is completely moronic, stop doing it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add

Please add these specifications.

  • 1.8, 1.8m, 1800 and 1,800 mm (5 ft 10+7⁄8 in) are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}.
  • 71, 71in, 71", 5ft11in and 5'11" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}.

58.138.55.55 (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

See Template:RailGauge. 58.138.55.55 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done Keith D (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add these specifications.

  • 0.512, 0.512in and 0.512" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.512|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=13}}.
  • 0.551, 0.551in and 0.551" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.551|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=14}}.
  • 0.945, 0.945in and 0.945" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.945|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=24}}.
  • 1.339, 1.339in and 1.339" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.339|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=34}}.
  • 1.89, 1.89in and 1.89" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.890|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=48}}.
  • 2.52, 2.52in and 2.52" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=2.52|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=64}}.
  • 118, 118in, 118", 9ft10in and 9'10" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=9|in=10|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2997}}.

58.138.55.55 (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - please advise.

Thank you for correcting dates on the Eaglescliffe page, however your edit remark "use them" was somewhat pretentious, and I might suggest you look to your own talk page header:

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • Avoid personal attacks
  • Be welcoming

I take over-bearing public demands such at that as personal, rude and unnecessary and would respectfully request that in future you raise any issues with how people edit things to them directly than through snide edit notes. Having now checked the Dates page I see that ordinals are not used, as you say, but the order "month day, year" is acceptable. So I am unsure what you mean by the page being "tagged" for any other method. Perhaps you can do the courtesy of explaining, as a good admin probably should do in the first place towards newly registered members such as myself, i.e "Be welcoming".

Thanking you in advance, for your understanding in this matter.

MarcusBritish (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you got me at a bad time with lots of problem articles and edits all at the same time. I apologise for being so curt with the edit summary. The article is tagged with the template {{use dmy dates}} which indicates which type of dates to be used in the article, mainly for BOT use, but indicates if day first or month first dates are used. {{use mdy dates}} is used for month first dates. Normally for US articles it is month first and the rest is day first, if no template or other indication is found. If you do not want to look for the template then in puts the article in a hidden category and you can see these by setting "Show hidden categories" in your preferences (on the Appearance tab under Advanced options). Keith D (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, no problems. Have checked the setting mentioned, seems its unchecked by default and I identified the tag mentioned. Will bear in mind to look out for these things in future. Regards, MarcusBritish (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

portal DYK

is Portal:Lincolnshire/Did you know . . . still going? I've just created Mareham Lane and thought it might make a local DYK... DYK Mareham Lane is the route of a roman road?
--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The DYKs on the portal come from the DYK entries for Lincolnshire articles that have appeared on the front page. May be you could nominate your article for the WP:DYK feature, there has not been any Lincolnshire ones on the main page that I know of recently. Keith D (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, right. Not too interested in that. The Dogdyke engine nomination was treated very rudely. Not sure I fancy another peek over that parapet. Don't let me stop you nominating, but they'd probably want another 2000 worms, and I'm not sure they are findable..--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Keith D - apologies, I'm new to this so please scrub this if it's been put in the wrong place. Thanks for cleaning up the Langwith College page, greatly appreciated - the biggest problem on wikipedia, I feel, is the lack of uniformity and it is a great help for you to assist!

All the best, University-7845120 (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, just for future reference - new comments go at the end of a talk page. Keith D (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Icknield Street

Hi Keith, Thanks for the spelling update on this and other articles of mine, I cant believe there wer so many under one sub heading ah well I really must proof read them a bit more thoroughly or put them into word and spell check them as a final check. Thanks again and cheers Adrian Argrogan (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I use the spell checker that plugs in to Firefox to pick-up on obvious ones. Keith D (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Paralympics Task Force Invitation!

You are cordially invited to join the Paralympics Task Force!
You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining the Paralympics Task Force. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.

We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like the Paralympic Games and facilitate team work in the development of Paralympic Games articles.

If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
I hope you accept! - Bib (talk)

Thanks

- for the congrats Keith. It was a rough ride, but I got there in the finish! --Kudpung (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pannal

Thanks for your sterling work, keeping an eye on things! I've now added a few extra citations in response to your "citations needed" template, so let's hope they stick.--Storye book (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsure why the last one was removed, I reverted a couple of times, then user indicated they though it was advertising so I tagged it. Keith D (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Haha, touché - I missed that stage - I had put the cite back and said that the BMW and Mercedes in the text resembled advertising. Well I won't contest it if they remove the original cite, then. We now have enough citations for the bit about the imminent business park. --Storye book (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the ordinals from the dates on the Warwickshire Police article. I always put them in when i am typing and forgot to remove them. Shaun Whelan (talk) 01:00, 05 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2011

Delivered March 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup Seasons

Template:Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup Seasons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Delusion23 (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keith

Would you mind helping me properly integrate materials, cite references and format Firby? You get the credit! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.166.130 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. Looks rather confused at the moment and difficult to follow as appears to to about a surname and various different locations. Keith D (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is to isolate its founding origins and derived locations of "Firby, Hambleton", by tracing movements of the people involved, and that in the main, it is about the location that has provided most surname bearers into the present day, being the most influential (the other most influential is derived from Ferriby, via a Kentish branch of that family). Disambiguation is preferential, without making altogether many stub articles, but rather to redirect people who are interested in other, unrelated homophones or false friends. I would like to integrate historical records from the British government that are referred to on the discussion page, especially from the time in which the placename and surname was still Fritheby, because this seems to be the easiest form of disambiguation in origins between the various places or people derived from there and elsewhere. This means older records make it easier to tell if somebody came from there, rather than elsewhere sounding or looking similar in spelling, even though the records are in Anglo-Norman. Middle and Modern English versions connected to this name can be more speculative and possibly misinformative, and I do not wish for confusion because of similarities. The pre-Conquest period of the village appears to have potential, and ought to be as primary in focus for foundations as Anglo-Saxon settlements are generally well known in the time before 1066, since it is known from Domesday that this place was indeed founded by the reign of Harold Godwinson. Consistent records continue to be the case with this village until the time of Richard II, but the subsequent Roses era is the most difficult for me to discover anything about it.

It would appear that those with toponymical surnames, although originally, or long resident in their place, probably began moving out of their home villages at the time of the colonial settlements in America, because this surname is present in Bedale around this time, and not much later, although surrounding concentric circles outward show some local dispersal of those holding the name, as well as having renamed certain places after it, even into the New World. Studies in English population change point at least to the Elizabethan era, if not the Peasants' Revolt period after the Black Death caused disruptions. Perhaps the reason why I am not finding records is due to the Plague, but I am uncertain as to what extent that afflicted this part of Yorkshire, and indeed, have never studied its effects upon England in general.

Now, as to the disambiguation of "Firby, Hambleton"...this looks out of place. Most government documents, whether medieval or contemporary, refer to it in conjunction with Bedale, as in Bedale-cum-Cowling, and this format is how Firby was historically disambiguated from that near Westow. I would support making the "Firby" article into one for disambiguation, and transfer most of the information presently there, in a more refined and readable format, on a "Firby, Bedale" article. This would require a redirect from the present article, and relevant wikilink adjustments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.166.130 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The village article should have very little, if any, of the family name material in it apart from a sentence on the origin in its history section. The dab is for Wiki purpose and is in line with our normal naming convention of using the district name when there are 2 places of the same name in the ceremonial county otherwise it would be Firby, North Yorkshire. Firby, Bedale would not be in line with our dab rules. Keith D (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the most common or established form is what Wikipedia looks for. "Firby, North Riding of Yorkshire", is more accurate in the eyes of the residents of Yorkshire, or even "Firby, Hang East", other than "Firby, Bedale", if not "Firby, Richmondshire"--and these are all valid forms long in use for centuries. While Firby was originally separate from Bedale, it came to be included in the same civil parish and poor law, probably because half of the manor was always in the hands of Bedale since the Fitzalan family. Firby is typically made a footnote in discussions of Bedale, if only because most people in the wider world have no point of reference with which to relate to a village or hamlet of such small size, but my purpose here is to compile the known information relevant to it, since the information is usually not all found in one place, and is time consuming. I am sure that would be a worthy endeavour for exposure of the neighbouring Thorp Perrow by having its own article as well, but one thing at a time... I am not so sure that post-1974 gerrymandering is legitimate as the means of identification, and arbitrary names like "Hambleton" or "North Yorkshire" are not fitting, anymore than "South Yorkshire" (paramount in this kind of fiction) is a real place existing beyond paper, instead of districts like Wakefield, Pontefract, and Hallamshire, all of which are West Riding--the only fourth region within Yorkshire is the Ainsty. Allertonshire has more relevance to Firby as an entity, especially because of the Sigston family that once owned half the manor, since Kirkby Sigston is in Allertonshire, while the Ropner and Grey families in the early 20th century helped establish Firby identity in Durham--all of this is in the low-lying plains from Swale and Ure to Tees, and Allertonshire was originally part of Durham. You are correct in that the people with this name ought to have a separate disambiguation page, but residents--in conjunction with local economy or businesses, especially lords of the manor and their political ties, typically are included in the village histories of England, alongside churches and their histories; otherwise there can be no social dynamic reflected in a geographic article (the "three estates" of worker, lord, and priest, should be described for a complete picture of socioeconomics). I am not looking for complete coverage of those having the surname, and even made an argument against it in my above statement--I am actually apathetic and balk at the idea. My only concern is in linking the original settlement with those named for it, and those bearing the surname responsible. This is the same as tracing "old" York to "New" York, or "old" London to "New" London, etc. The people involved are the only means of making sense of the name duplicated elsewhere, and that is my only point. I am not interested in biographic data and personal issues, unless it bears directly upon the subject of the article. Compare my interest to the biography of Christopher Levett, who founded the first York in the New World, because he himself was from York. I would not base an article of geography about York, Maine upon Levett's biography, only note that he was the one responsible, and whatever circumstances surrounded it. I would even put this in the "old" York article, because it is an obvious issue of interest, especially for cartographers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.166.130 (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not use defunct counties/sub-divisions in naming any articles on locations, we use current county / districts for naming articles. If the place is the primary topic, that needs no dab, it goes at <name>, for UK places that need a dab it goes at <name, current ceremonial county>, if there are more than one place of the same name in a ceremonial county it goes by <name, district> or <name, borough> depending on if it is a shire county or metropolitan county. Keith D (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A "dab" would depend upon how localities are categorized, as in what system employed. Under the Wikipedia guidelines, is it fine to use the present electoral divisions that you refer to, and then mention in the introduction, the previous widespread categorization, that people still use in informal conversation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.166.130 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Swaledale Festival

Keith D - maybe I'm not getting this citation thing, but maybe you're being over-cautious.

Example: "The Festival...is the principal provider of professional music across the northern Yorkshire Dales. [citation needed]". The northern Yorkshire Dales (as distinct from "North Yorkshire dales") are Wensleydale and Swaledale and their tributaries. (Does that statement itself need a citation? They are self-evidently the northernmost, at any rate.) Within those dales, the Swaledale Festival >is< the principal provider of professional music. I state that categorically, as chairman of the Festival, as ex-chairman of the Regional Arts Development Agency for Richmondshire, and as a trustee of the Richmondshire subscription concerts society (which is probably the second largest provider). So do I cite myself? Do I cite a colleague from the District Council or Arts Council (who would probably be reliant on me for the information)? How, in a case like this, can a citation be provided? Nick (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What needs a citation is that they are the "Principal provider of professional music" it need a third party reference saying this, not from anyone associated with the festival, but some other published reliable source. See WP:CITE & WP:RS. Keith D (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Giovani Dos Santos

Danone Nations Cup Golden Boot: 2001[citation needed] http://danonenationscup2010.com/?page_id=480 Thanks --Norbit36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

thankyou

Hi Keith,

Thanks for the edit re: Burnby Hall Gardens

I chose to edit the page as part of a question on an assignment from the Open University about using Wikipedia.

As I live in Pocklington I thought I'd go for something local.

Hope my post was ok.

One of the requirements for my course is to have someone review the entry that i made......."ask a colleague, fellow student or friend to critically assess the changes you had made – quote from his or her verdict on your edits"

Just wondering if you would be kind enough to spare a few words, less than 50, on my first effort.........


Regards, Chris

user Chris255 Chris255 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done on your first edit. The changes you made to the article Burnby Hall Gardens complied with our policy of being written from a neutral point of view. Though it did contain some peacock words, such as "amazing" which should be avoided in articles. A reliable source was supplied, though misplaced at the end of the article. Formatting of the source was not supplied but then you would not expect new editors to know about this and comes with experience. Keith D (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Woodhall Spa

Hi there,

I notice that you reverted a cheeky edit on this article on March 5th, and that you seem to be keeping an eye on Woodhall Spa historically. I started odd bits of copyediting and removing excess but then realised that there was a major "edit" on March 29th that seemed to throw the whole article off-kilter. I am hoping you will take a look here again - does it need to be reverted to your March 5th version? Be glad for your help before I carry-on tweaking the article. Acabashi (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that it needs a revert as some good bits in it, though poorly referenced and a bit promotional in places. I have got used to that particular editor, often under an IP address, with their strange edit summaries and major changes, not very responsive to changing their habits either. I usually find that you can use the info and create something useful from it. I would carry on copy-editing it. Keith D (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll build on the earlier version in a word doc, taking anything useful from the latest. Acabashi (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Queens Campus

Hi Bmcln1, Regarding the deleting of the section on "Queens Campus". There is nothing irrelevant about the true location of these two colleges, unless you are trying to hide the fact that they are neither in County Durham nor Stockton. Thornaby-on-Tees was only included into Stockton's borough in 1974 for Parliamentary purposes. Conspiring to mislead and/or deceive the general public is a criminal offence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.185.41 (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not user Bmcln1. But the information seems irrelevant to the article. Keith D (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why it seems irrelevant to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.185.41 (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A single location detail is fine, without a long explanation of where it is which is not relevant to an encyclopaedia. If you want details on the location then go to the linked location article. Keith D (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg Knight

Is he married, its clearly disputed - all we have is that deadlink - no wayback either, and google results don't return anything - can you assert he is married? Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It was removed as it was a drive-by by new user without comment - I reverted as vandalism as it appeared to be valid information. The GRO Index has the entry in July 1992 in Westminster - see here (subscription required) Keith D (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ancestry dot com is original research, it has been removed again - please do not replace it unless you can assert using secondary wikipedia reliable citations that the subject is married today. As a suggestion - although his maritial status is worthy of mention it is not am essential part of his notability and if we have only weak claims for it and it is disputed for the time being it is better left out of the BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Ancestry is just one supplier of a copy of the official indexes produced by the GRO and is as reliable as you get for the birth/marriages/deaths, there is no original research here. Keith D (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The original research is that you have to go looking for it, it is not a secondary published reliable source. Such a source is not what we are here to report. Yesterday I had a look around the Internet and did not find a degree of support for the claim that the subject is married now, if you can please assert it and we can replace the comment??? Have you got additional support for this claim? Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker): Who's Who does not mention any marriage for Knight, though does so for another married MP - which of course may either mean that he's not married now or that he doesn't include it in info he provides to Who's Who. Couldn't think of an example to check, but presumably in some cases Who's Who will include ex-marriages for divorced people, but only if the subject chooses to list them. (It's online via public library) PamD (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
There is mention of his wife Janet here and here. The Daily Telegraph gives name as Janet Ormond here. He declares the employment of his wife Janet Ormond on 29 October 2010 in the House of Commons Liaison Committee minutes here. Are these sufficient? Keith D (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, this seems to be sufficient to me, is this event report from 2011? can this event be dated? http://www.driffieldintouch.com/news/126/ - the others support but seem a bit dated Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably recent as it is still on the web site but have no idea. If you are re-instating suggest note in text as well as infobox entry. Keith D (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have replaced in the infobox with a couple of these supports, feel free to add to the article body text also, your searching and presented citations has imo - indisputably asserted marriage and name to the very recent past. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
He still employs his wife according to the latest register of interests as of 28 March 2011 as prepared on 1 April 2011 here. Keith D (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A Milestone

100000 Edits
Belated Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! 06:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Buster Seven Talk 06:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)This award design created by User:Bugboy52.40 ________________________________________________________________

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2011

Delivered April 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 23:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dudley Hardy

Does this one fit with Wiki project Yorkshire? Born and brought up in Sheffield. Acabashi (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It can be tagged for the project. It can only just been placed in a Yorkshire category or I would have spotted it and given it at least a {{WPBIO}} tag when I passed the D's earlier today. Keith D (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - yes I only added the article an hour ago. Acabashi (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes - I always get something wrong however much I try not to; it's nice to know people are there to pick-up my mistakes. I'll remember to fully fledge-out the months. And the ISBNs - I just copied from the source - now I know how to do it for Wikipedia. These are the things I'm weak on as my main joy is re-writing, and creating articles when I get the time and, for me, an interesting topic. But I am learning ! Acabashi (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Barton Line

Hello, Keith D. You have new messages at Likelife's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keith_D/Archive_26&oldid=1205856988"