User talk:Starbois/2009

Re: A380

Hi, i think you are barking up the wrong tree. I just wrote the comment on the user page. User Ssolbergj made the changes. Perhaps you can take it up with him. Cheers. Causantin (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Windsor Boys' School

You recently unilaterally moved The Windsor Boys' School to Windsor Boys' School citing the school's web site as evidence of the name. As a governor of that school, I can vouch that the "The" is definitely part of the official name; that being the reason for my original move of the page to its correct name. Both the Local Authority responsible for the school and the Office for Standards in Education include "The". I'm open to further discussion; or will, after a while, revert this move. Bazza (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Laubegast Niederpoyritz Ferry

A tag has been placed on Laubegast Niederpoyritz Ferry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Johannstadt Neustadt Ferry

A tag has been placed on Johannstadt Neustadt Ferry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Laubegast Niederpoyritz Ferry

I have nominated Laubegast Niederpoyritz Ferry, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laubegast Niederpoyritz Ferry. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading, Berkshire

Hi there, regarding the Reading article and your comments on my User_talk:A_boardley, the article has certainly improved since then. It's good to see so many refs added and I'm happy for the Refimprove tag to be removed. Fact tags are certainly the way forward now, I shall add them when I see the need and encourage you to do the same. Thanks for your help a_boardley (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

De Profundis

I don't have the sources to hand, although there might be a few online sources at a pinch, but if you are expanding the De Profundis article, the work featured heavily in the libel case taken by Alfred Douglas against Arthur Ransome; as far as I remember, the reading of it in court essentially won the case for Ransome. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(reply) Yes, I can find a few trivial mentions online of the trial like this passing mention from the Daily Telegraph, but the trial should be the object of coverage in detail in printed sources. I made a quick search of Google News out of curiosity and I found a contemporary mention of the publication of De Profundis in the New York Times of 1905; my hat is off to the guys at the NYT who have had to scan all the back issues. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Berkshire

Hi Starbois. I have reverted your recent edits to List of civil parishes in Berkshire as the page uses a common format, reached after much discussion by users, across all the sub-pages of List of civil parishes in England. The format is currently being upgraded, and is being tested in the Metropolitan Counties first (see List of civil parishes in Merseyside to get an idea), so the Berkshire page will almost certainly change at some time over the next year. Hopefully, the new format will take care of any concerns you may have, but it will take a bit of time to roll this out to every county in England. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mapledurham

Thankyou for your edits to Mapledurham. I have reverted all of them except the inline citation of an external link to a BBC South Today webpage that you added.

All material added to articles must be verifiable. Your assertion of why you think Mapledurham is best known may or may not be true, but is impossible to verify by citing an authoritative published source. The "Civil Parish" section that you added repeated material all of which is already in the infobox, which has a standard format in order to condense what would take much longer to state longhand. Your elongation of the inline citations to Sherwood & Pevsner's The Buildings of England: Oxfordshire departs from the established academic convention that Wikipedia uses, which is to state author, date, page and nothing else. An inline citation should be concise but include enough data to direct a reader to the publication that is cited in full in the list of sources. There is no value in making articles longer per se. There is value in giving as much verifiable, factual information as possible as concisely and clearly as possible.

You uploaded 27 edits to the same article in 26 hours. Most of us just after we have uploaded material have afterthoughts that lead us to make amendments. However, you may find it useful to use your sandbox first until your work is complete enough to upload.

Thankyou for taking the time and trouble to contribute to Wikipedia. I hope that you will not be discouraged from continuing to do so. Motacilla (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I saw in Reading, Berkshire that you added an "accessyear" parameter. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter.
See also {{Cite web}}. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I too saw that. However, I think that what actually happened is that you (Starbois) have reverted to a previous version, one from prior to this edit, in order to remove some undesirable content, without noticing that other, valid, changes have gone on in the meantime. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Odd. I have not knowingly done either. Let me check it out. -- Starbois (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that guys. That edit was supposed just to change one line in the infobox parameters, but the logs show I changed other stuff too. I've no idea how that happened; the changes don't seem to be extensive enough for me to have inadvertently edited the older version; but equally I didn't change them explicitly. Weird. I will go through all the changes and rectify any other damage. -- Starbois (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, the edit where you seem to have carried out a revert is this one, 14:01, 10 December 2009 - the bits that Debresser is mainly concerned about is the part under the heading "Line 315". If you compare the result of that edit to the version of 16:25, 22 November 2009, you will note the similarities, but see the edit summaries in particular. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There had been a lot of changes since I last looked at the article, most of which I agreed with, but one or two I didn't. It didn't make sense to revert, so what I (thought I) did was bring up two windows; one with the diffs and another to edit the latest version with. I then (thought I) changed the things I wanted to 'revert' in the latest version; in this case this was the unitary1= entry in the infobox. I surmise that I actually somehow got the two windows mixed up, and ended up editing the earlier version of the article, thus effectively reverting the intermediate changes, including at least one of my own. :-(

Anyway, I believe I've put everything back to what it should be now. -- Starbois (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There were also some other minor changes which were originally done with this edit but subsequently lost again: commas missing from "month day year" style dates, and four hyphens changed to en-dashes in page ranges. All of these I have redone. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Starbois (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)