User talk:Keith D/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Cottingham

not sure why you deleted facts from the 2001 census on the article on Cottingham. These are directly relevant because they challenge a common myth about the place and correct previous data on the article. You state 'our policy' - I contend that your redo edits were wrong and you are just removing the information as a way of childishly winning the edit. I suggest that this relevent information stays on the article and you focus on adding detail that improves the article rather than engaging such repetitive redos for your own spurious reasons. 82.29.114.179 (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because they are POV as per my comment on your talk page. By selecting 2 instances of counter claims form the many claims which all claim on a different basis you are not comparing like for like. The wikilinked article gives details of the claims of each candidate and as the claims are dealt with there there is no nead to have a POV statement in the article. Keith D (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I beleave you think you are right. Imagine if you put the same effort into improving the article with new information as such a pedantic edit? 82.29.114.179 (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Goal posts

Hi Keith, real life intervened for a couple of days. As for the KOH article, the goal posts seem to be speeding along the motorway. I think, maybe put a copy in a sandbox, wait a while and have another try at revising it with fresh eyes later on.--Harkey (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to above--Harkey (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks OK but rather difficult to follow the changes with the material being reshuffled. Need to merge back in to main article then we can take it from there again and see if we can re-try for GA. Keith D (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would try and avoid use of the reference "shop_in_hull" as it looks suspiciously like an old copy of the wiki article so will not be reliable. Keith D (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pilot Theatre

Thanks Keith I do need some help editing the Pilot Theatre Page It is m first time and any help would be gratefully received

many thanks

--Pilot-leader (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist so I can keep an eye on it. I guess you need first to establish the notability of the topic so take a look at Notability guidelines and then to add some references for the information you have given, see Cite sources. If you have any problems then drop me a note and good luck with the editing. Keith D (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WPYorks Newsletter

I've had a first look at the newsletter. Thanks for doing some updating. I think the comments on the priority articles may need updating, so I'll have a look at them over the next few days. There seems to have been less editing activity in the last month. Maybe exams and summer holidays?--Harkey (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not update the priority details just the first column details. May be we need to get hold of a GA / FA expert to help out and give us some pointers as to what needs doing to these articles. Once we have a few done then should be easier to spot the problems with the others. Keith D (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes,OK. Meantime, maybe running them through Wikipedia Page History Statisticswould help us to make some interesting NPOV observations. It certainly fascinates me!--Harkey (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, not seen that tool but I remember another with similar output. May be worth a canvas in the newsletter to see if we have anyone willing to help out or who knows anyone who would be willing to help out with pointers. Keith D (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on making some statistical comments for the top 5 (as far as viewings in May are concerned) any more than 5 makes it unwieldy. It should be ready today (Thursday) sometime.--Harkey (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work looks good, and gives a feel of the usage. Will need to go through with final changes before end of month depending on activity on project. Keith D (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fingers crossed for the News Bot to run without a hitch this time!!!

Thank you--Harkey (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

May-be you did not keep them crossed ;-) Keith D (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh heck !! Must have been when I mowed the lawn !! I've left a message at the talk page of the news bot owner. Good idea to get the Yorkshire articles looked at for actions needed. I was browsing through a few yesterday and made a list of some useful infoboxes, here, to add. I thought a mention in the next newsletter and a list in a (new?) section on the WPYorks main page could provoke some interest.--Harkey (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks sounds good. I found it when was looking around to see if there is some other way of doing the watchlist as I have had no joy with the bot owner at getting an update. He has done one for the Sheffield list in June but then he is interested in Sheffield, but we have not had an update since April 13th. Keith D (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam Cowan

Good spot. Not sure why or where Doncaster came from. All the sources used state Chesterfield, so corrected it to that. Peanut4 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reason you ask, now has me to return a question. Have you tagged him with WP:YORKS because he was born in Yorkshire? I do a lot of work on Footy bios, and will start adding other such tags, if that is indeed correct. Secondly any player who was born outside of Yorkshire, but plays / played for a Yorkshire team, should he be likewise tagged? Peanut4 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response, I did not want to get in the way of the GA review with the query.

I was just adding the assessment for Yorkshire and did not add the project tag. I have been avoiding biographies, schools & railway stations for the moment in my tagging but that is only because they are covered by other projects. I would think that we should tag them for either birth in Yorkshire or played for a Yorkshire team for consistency, though I can see there being a large number of articles involved. When you tag them I would set importance to Low unless they were especially notable. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lealholm

Hi! The article Lealholm has been sitting in WP:GAN for quite a while and there are still some concerns from editors that need to be addressed to get to GA status. Since the article is so close to earning GA status, I don't want to simply fail it because a few items have been left unaddressed. From the comments of reviewers it appears that the article still fails WP:GACR for the following reasons:

Economy, Demography, and Education sections are a bit light. I personally don't have much of a problem with the way they are, but if there's no more information, then that's just the way it is. However, I don't want the article's GA status to be reverted on reassessment because a single editor thought that there wasn't enough information.
The Culture section still seems to be primarily OR. I don't have the main source (the Lealholm Farm Produce and Horticultural Society Schedule of Prizes offered for Competition at their eighty seventh annual exhibition and sports) but judging by the title, it doesn't seem like it contains all the information provided in the culture section. Further, the section itself isn't too terribly well-written (such as providing the time for the events... not clear why that information is important?) and uses imprecise terms like "popular". What does popular mean? Does the entire town show up? Etc.

I would go-ahead and take the initiative to fix things to get to GA status, but I'm afraid that would disqualify me as an objective reviewer if I just made changes and then passed the article! Thanks for your help. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I am not sure I can do too much about expanding article as I have little knowledge of the place only what I have picked up while editing the article. The main editor appears to have been erratic with very little activity since proposing it for GA. I will see if any of the other editors have input as it seems a shame to fail just on a few small points. Keith D (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have added the population figure to the infobox but that is strictly incorrect as stated in the demographics section. The figure is for Glaisdale parish which covers 4 settlements, one of which is Lealholm. Keith D (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Indeed right you are. Thank you for catching that. I made note of it in the parenthetical reference. Hopefully that will avoid confusion? And I'm just not sure what to with this nomination... I mean, it's been almost 60 days since its original nomination and hasn't achieved GA status yet. Maybe the article should just be failed and when the main editors decide to fix the final remaining points they can renominate? epicAdam (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just copied your comments to WP:YORKS to see if any of the other Yorkshire editors can provide input. I would leave it a day and then if you think the article still fails then I think that you should fail it, though it pains me to say that. I have made a few obvious tweaks, will look again later tonight. Keith D (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely sensible. Thank you for your help. epicAdam (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you. I saw the article on Mirfield was lacking some photographs, so I took some while I was out and about. I did try and upload them here but fell foul the rules as my account is new, luckily I knew someone from another wiki who could help me out. I do not know how much I will be doing around here, but if there's anything in the Dewsbury vicinity you need photos for just give me a shout. Yorks LF (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. If you are interested in photos for West Yorkshire article look at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in West Yorkshire for articles that have been tagged as requiring photographs. Unsure, off hand, if any of them are near to Dewsbury, though Dewsbury itself is in the list as it only has 2 photos on the article. Keith D (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that link will be useful. Did a couple, found some suitably licenced photographs on FlickR. Will take a look at the rest in a day or so. Yorks LF (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts - if you are interested you can join us at the Yorkshire wikiproject which is for improving all Yorkshire related articles. Keith D (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingston upon Hull

This diff on my sandbox gives an idea of what I did. I took the whole article and tried to cut the bits the reviewer didn't like and reorganise as advised and then change the passive language. I will look for better refs ASAP and put them into the sandbox version. I think its worth having another go. There hasn't been a lot of activity on the live version so a straight swap with the sandbox one might be in order. Then catch up with any decent/recent changes. Did you see the video link on the live one? Ahem!! --Harkey (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was unsure about that but left it for the minute. The problem with the switch is the unintentional changes in the sandbox version like the missing categories/interwikies and the images the bot removed. But I think it can be reconstructed when you are ready. Keith D (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the refs to the British History Online/ Victoria County History, because that was where the sop in hull (or even shop in hull :-) oops!!) seemed to have got them from.--Harkey (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and changed the text.I've made a list of the changes on the talk page. Lots to do but lots done.--Harkey (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Next part of KUH

I've drafted a paragraph here about services. I will add refs etc. if you think it is OK. Salt End is looming larger on the radar as an important place for the infrastructure of the area. That article may need expanding too soon !!--Harkey (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Technically Castle Hill Hospital is in Cottingham rather then in the city but it is adjacent. Salt End is adjacent to city in the other direction and also in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The Salt End article as it stands needs a few tweaks to clarify it as some of the technical terms in the middle need some clarifying to make it flow. With the possibility of the new waste to energy plant being build there it will get more importance. The sewerage plant is not mentioned at all as yet. On the fire service you will need to check the status of the 5 stations as they were talking of closing the central station, which is rather strange with all the development in the centre of the city, unsure if this went ahead or was shelved. Keith D (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The fire station closure was "in consultation" on the latest document that I found. I shall be away for a few days so feel free to adapt if you want.--Harkey (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008

Delivered July 2008 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew ! --Harkey (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Radford Semele

I reverted to a previous version due to vandalism. Widefox (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that one. Keith D (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Schofields

Schofields (department store)

Hi Keith when I looked at the article I felt it needed refs adding as the main point but also that the article could do with possible additional section headings & links adding to last paragraph. Just getting hang of Tags so if you think unreferenced would be better feel free to change it. (Theirs more options than a little with all the tags to choose from, and cleanup was the one that appears most (that ive seen)). I was looking for info for other things and rather than walk on by and leave it, I would highlight the article had issues IMO. Then maybe somebody with the knowledge and time can fixit.BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will leave it at cleanup as there is more than just references that need attention. The problem I see with the {{Cleanup}} tag is that others have to work out the problems and they may not see the same problems that you do. Always best to get a tag that fits, if one is available, or alternatively explain what the problem is on the talk page. Keith D (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point about being more specific with a note on talk page. Some articles appear to be scattered with multiple tags, which as you say the reasons obvious to the tagger, but not always to others, but then opinions vary about articles any way. thanks - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Taylor

Leave it there then, it isn't a problem it being there. Many are asking the question is Taylor the best sportsperson ever of any sport. So it's a simple fact he's the best ever. Sid Waddell says it every minute on commentery and he's been doing darts for over 30 years.

Check out these stats... tournaments wins etc...

http://www.teessidesoftware.no-ip.com/DartsDatabase/PlayerStats.aspx

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.55.96 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hi, I've just spent a happy hour (or two) looking for watchlist makers. I remembered seeing one ages ago and finally tracked it down to User:WatchlistBot but, looking at the talk page, it appears to be out of action. I can't even get our current Yorkshire watchlist to appear. The message that I get appears to suggest that the page is too long. Could this be part of the problem ? Sorry I can't be of more help.--Harkey (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. The watchlist page is large and will not load but is still operative for searches but has not been updated with newly tagged articles since April. The chap who run the bot does not seem to reply to messages on his talk page. I would have thought that all projects would be wanting such a service. Keith D (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I created a new experimental watchlist page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/watchlist0708 following the instructions on the bot page. This was because I couldn't get at the source of the old watchlist page (because it's too long to display) to check if the wording was correct. I first tried it with a copy and paste from the Sheffield watchlist, substituting Yorkshire for Sheffield. When I tried to get to the template (with ctrl - click) it said the page did not exist so I used the exact wording on the bot instructions. The bot seems to be universal with parameters added. Yet its working for Sheffield with a non existent template so maybe wait and see if it works for the newly created page (as above)when the bot next runs.--Harkey (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The bot is a manually run one rather than an automatic one. I think you run it with a parameter of the project you want it to run or have a list of projects to run on. I have since found User:SQLBot appears to do something similar as task 4. It seems to be intermittent on this task but is running doing other tasks. I may give it a go. Keith D (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though it will do the job that we need. Please give it a try.--Harkey (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just dropped owner a note will see what happens. Keith D (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Selby College

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to User_talk:Kewstu, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Keith according to the Goole Times on Thursday 10th July 2008, Goole College had achieved 5 outstanding grades, the article which is not online at the moment says clearly 16 Colleges had now been given this type of grading. I do not see how my change could possibly be construed as Vandalism - I expect you to take that Warning 3 away as it is simply uncalled for and out of order.

Keith also please stop stalking me on Wiki it is not nice to be followed everywhere.

Also I can do what I please on MY own TALK page please refrain from defacing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewstu (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going by the reference quoted on the page. If you change information then you also need to change the reference as well to enable others to verify that information. I would wait until the page you quote is online and then change the article & apply the new reference for the change. I will then be in a position to verify your change to the article and if that is the case will gladly remove the warning from your user page. Keith D (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Keith it is now referenced please remove the uncalled for warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewstu (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have struck the warning from your talk page as I can now see from your reference that I incorrectly reverted your change. Keith D (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle or Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle

I've just seen your notice on Yorkshirian's talk page about other dioceses. Do you know how to restore matters so that the editing history is recovered from them? I'm afraid I don't see how to do it now because of the edit-warring. Yorkshirian has reacted in a predictable way to my notice to him on my own talk page, and I am loathe to engage with him much more, as an Arbcom case involving his disruption on UK geography articles is nearing completion, and a block I placed on him for a matter to do with that led to me adding myself as a party to that action (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian and associated sub-pages.) DDStretch (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just reverted out the changes as it was a cut & paste move and was not worth the effort of splicing the histories together. Though there may be lots more by the edits made today. Keith D (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the responses. I am willing to discuss on the talk pages if Yorkshirian is willing to explain why the English dioceses ought to be considered different from every other diocese. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but it is too late as Yorkshirian has been banned from editing for a year by the arbitration committee for various editing and conduct problems. I cannot see why there should be a difference for the English dioceses articles as non of the comments I have read make any sense to an outsider. I think that your edits have been restored by ddstretch. If you find there is a problem with the edit history from the moves of a particular article then I can take a look and see if I can repair it. Keith D (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

East Park Video

Keith - you removed a video over on Kingston_upon_Hull citing poor quality video. Please elaborate re what constitutes suitable video. mk (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the video was rather difficult to see and was rather jumpy as though it has been filmed with a mobile phone, though that could be a problem with my hardware or connection speeds.

(1) Video shot on a mobile phone

Modern mobile phones support good video and stills capabilities. In this case the video is DVD resolution and 25fps. Acquisition platform (e.g. mobile phone, cine camera, DV, HD etc.) isn’t a basis for excluding content. There are numerous WP videos the quality of which, by modern standards, could be regarded poor but this does not disqualify them from inclusion. For example: Wright_Flyer. I’m not confident WP is crying out for footage in the latest and greatest high quality formats (which occupy +200MB per minute?).

(2) Video playback is jumpy

If the playback is jumpy the most likely cause is the hosting infrastructure / player technology, or your personal CPU/network bandwidth. Either way it’s not the video. If the video is downloaded / played back it runs smooth. There is no problem with the video itself. IMO it’s no grounds for excluding a video. All videos will be subject equally to these types of constraints. If one video is jumpy the all of them will be. The solution most likely sits with infrastructure.

(3) Video difficult to see

If the video is too small it can be increased in size by tweaking the mark-up language (e.g. below).

LARGE/small
Example large. Example small.

mk (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking it was not really suitable for the page in question, "discourage video where still images are adequate" is the current thoughts on use of video.

I doubt this policy was meant to be followed blindly. The content should be the guide. For instance a video of a building (a static subject) is adding very little value over a still photograph of same. I.e. a still photo would be most appropriate in this case. On the other hand, a park is a place for recreation where people engage in all kinds of activity; ball games, water sports, and so on where the subjects are in constant motion. Video is arguably at least as capable as still images in this area, if not more, at capturing the essence of the subject. The particular video in question shows a park that is alive with people doing the things they do in parks. For example playing bowls, going for walks, impromptu football games.

Incidentally do you have a reference regarding the guidance "discourage video where still images are adequate". I’d like to review the thinking behind it, as well as raise the subject of the slideshow video (i.e. a compilation of stills) which blurs the distinction between motion video and stills (if it hasn’t already been raised).

I also note that another editor previously removed it from this article.

That’s not a reason for removing it. The author whom previously removed the video was logged on anonymously, I believe. If I knew who they were I would flag their edit with them.

I would think that the clip would be more suitable for use in an article on the park where it would have more relevance and would be better than words or static images, which would fit better with current thoughts on video usage. May be you could produce an article on the park that the video may be used on.

If you think that the Kingston upon Hull article is a suitable place then try raising it on the talk page and see what others think.

Agreed, relevance is an issue. The current location ‘dialect and accent’ is not appropriate, for both images in fact.

My initial insert alongside the park still was the best context I found given the time I spent looking (which was not a lot to be frank - through sheer laziness on my part I admit).

I support the creation of a space within the existing article to accommodate content in the area of parks and recreation (over creation of a separate article). Hull is replete with parks and recreational facilities and a section dedicated to this topic is justifiable on the grounds the current Hull article is unrepresentative of the city without one. I’ll work on some content and come back via the article’s talk page.

The issue to present to the talk page IMO is whether to amend an existing section name or create a new one (not for the creation of a new article). For example there is a ‘culture’ section in the current article. This could be amended to ‘Culture and Recreation’ as it is in many other articles for other major UK cities.

A new / renamed section would offer an appropriate location for both still and video media we have concerning the parks (plus other relevant material). mk (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Keith D (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find appropriate referenced material for adding of some details on parks then I would think that would be a good addition to the article, we can spin off details on individual parks or have a sub-article on recreation if there is too much material for the Kingston upon Hull article. The video would fit better in a recreation section rather than as a stand alone with no context. There is already a Pearson Park article that was created because of its connections to Philip Larkin which could be linked in to the section, that is why the still was added to the Kingston upon Hull article originally. Keith D (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page.--Harkey (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tees Flyover

OK, thanks Keith, just looked odd as generally Lists seem to only have links when there's an article, perhaps the Teessiders have not got to that one yet, most of the bridges have one. Another one for the to do list. BulldozerD11 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WPYorks Newsletter (again)

I made some additions and changes. Maybe we should mention the problem with the Project watchlist being out of date? I also wondered if making a watchlist of edits to our priority articles (as per[1]) might be of interest?--Harkey (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

May be worth it - the new bot user acknowledged my note but I have not actually got any watchlist from them a yet. It would be good if there was one we could create as required but appears to require a bot to create such a list. I have had a quick look a sources for both bots and looks not too difficult if there was a way of not requiring the bot approval but something manual to run. Someone else may know of other services that actually produce the goods. Keith D (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thought there is the new clean-up listing that could be worth a plug. The second run focuses some attention on the FA, FL & GA articles with tags, may be worth getting people to look at these. I have fixed one fact tag on the Hull City A.F.C. article. Keith D (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a really good idea. The bot must have run again when I was away last week. I must admit that the list looked a bit daunting at first, until I realised that the first part was (nearly) a summary of the second part. BTW, I'm using Reference generator to help with refs, but a bot seems to go round changing the publication Date field to Year. Is the tool out of date? I hope not because it saves me a lot of angst. :-)--Harkey (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The tool only works if you give it a full date. If you just give a year or a year & month then you need to change the field names. By the way I would use normal date format for that field rather than the ISO format as per example. There seems to be a problem over linked dates again as they are removing them for some FA articles saying there is too much blue links around. I personally prefer to have them all linked to get user preference working. will have to see what happens on that one. Keith D (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that.I see now. Publication dates are usually given as years. I have just found this for Mozilla (which I use anyway). Great for people like me who hate the fiddly jobs !! :-(--Harkey (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(I'm back after a short dose of real life!) Shall I write a sentence or two about an improvement drive on York and the cleanup listing or will you?--Harkey (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - thought that you must have been away - feel free to put something together, I can always change/add etc. On the York article Kaly99 has been doing a lot of references/external links changes so may be it is nearer to a first run at GA. Not done too much myself as I am having problems over access as it takes ages to respond, sometimes I can go and have a cup of tea while waiting for a page to save! I have added a section to the main project page for deletions as one of our articles has been tagged for AFD. Still no progress on the watchlist front. Keith D (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Is it in the correct section? I'm also having trouble with the York article. The External links are missing and the text goes off the right side of my screen after the climate chart. Perhaps we need to drop a note on the York article talk page about the drive and maybe make a few comments on the comments page. I've already noticed a few bits that need attention.--Harkey (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the York article - there was a missing </ref> tag in the weather template. Though I think that the use of {{Citation}} is not good as it does not show the accessdate though has it as a parameter which is rather strange. Keith D (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, thats done it.--Harkey (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My Edits to Ossett

Have you personally removed my edit on Ossett, if so how come, my edit was clearly truthful and honest and i made sure puntuation and grammar were up to standard. The Cyantist (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it as unencyclopedic and unreferenced. If you think that it is OK then please supply a reliable source for the addition. Keith D (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the same information which i entered into the Trivia section of the Ossett page can be found also on the Ossett School page[2]. Will you be removing this information also as it is "unreferenced" and "unencyclopedic". I believe this to be a very hypocritical act on your behalf and would kindly request that you replace the information i entered.The Cyantist (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I have now tagged it requesting citation. If one is not forthcoming then it will also be removed. Though it was clearer than the entry in Ossett itself as to what the passage was meant to be. Keith D (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I think it will be highly unlikely for any citations to be found, but it still is a well known fact in Ossett and has been for over 40 years. The Cyantist (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Moorsholm

The suspected copyright violation is of www.moorsholm.com (according to the message left on my talk page [3] and it was added on 2 August 2007 by an IP, almost all in one edit.[4]

A search on archive.org finds results from www.moorsholm.com in June 2007 without that content, and later in August 2007 with the content, so the earliest date I can find is the addition of the text to Wikipedia. However it does look like it was copied and pasted from somewhere, and probably not written for Wikipedia, so I think it probably is a copyright violation; on the guide to spotting possible copyright violations it has most of the "indicative but not conclusive" signs, but none of the "strong" or "irrefutable" signs of being copied/pasted. Snydale (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was hoping the user would give details of where the text was from. Their removal of the photo was incorrect as that is from Geograph which is GFDL licensed. Though it is academic now as the text has been rewritten by another user. Keith D (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Template:Roman Catholic dioceses in England and Wales looks great now! Much appreciated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)