User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 3

Image tagging for Image:Alliancemlas2003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alliancemlas2003.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

QMC

Cool! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• just joined that category. I feel like more of a Warwick student but I guess that's where I am now. Triangle e 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Conservative or Unionist party tags in Scotland

Just added this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies page. Any input from yourself would be greaty appreciated. Thanks. Galloglass 12:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Friends (TV series)

Thanks for reverting the move of this article! ~~ Peteb16 23:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

James Pybus

Hi Tim, I just stumbled across the very stubby article which you had created on James Pybus.

May ask you to take a look at my comments at Talk:Percy_John_Pybus#James_or_Percy? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Responding there now. Timrollpickering 01:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects with possibilities

At Derek Birley, you bypassed 2 redirects with possibilities diff. I have two concerns with this:

1. There is a guideline not to bypass redirects unless you edit the page for another reason, as redirects have a negligible server load compared to edits
2. More importantly, the {{R with possibilities}} tag explicitly says "Do not replace these redirected links with a link directly to the target page"

Please check the purpose of redirects before you bypass them. I have reverted your edit to Derek Birley. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that you are working hard on numerous education articles, and the above is a minor oversight. Keep it up! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:People by university in Northern Ireland

I am not stalking you (honest) but I disagree with this category. It requires users to load an extra page for no benefit, so I put it up for deletion. Nothing personal. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Glasgow constituencies

Hello

You seem to be an expert in such matters so perhaps you can help me clarify a point: while translating the article Donald Dewar for the French wiki, I tried to check the names of the constituencies he stood for, and could not match them with the list in the article List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. It turns out the devolution played havoc with the list, Glasgow Garscadden, for example, totally disappearing while Glasgow Anniesland seems to be a recent creation. Apparently some (or all?) constituencies in Scotland were replaced by new ones, but for the non-British reader it is unclear whether United Kingdom parliament constituencies match Scotland's parliament constituencies or whether the two lists are different. Information exists here and there if you use the links, but you can find it only if you know about it in advance. I wish I could think of a synthetic, elegant solution to the problem, but I can't. However it seems to me that a few footnotes (by an expert) might be helpful for non-British readers. Amicalement, --Anne97432 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right it is confusing.

Every so often the Boundary Commission reviews the size and shape of the constituencies across the UK and often recommends changes to both the area covered and the names. This can be particularly confusing in an urban area where over decades the balance of the population shifts, and so consequently a lot of name changes happen.

Complicating matters further when the Scottish Parliament was established it used the same constituencies as were used at the time for the UK Parliament (with the exception of Orkney & Shetland which was split in two). However a decision was made that the boundaries don't have to stay the same as the UK ones (mainly to prevent a cut in Members of the Scottish Parliament at the same time as the UK MPs) and so the Scottish Parliament still uses the old constituency boundaries, whilst the UK Parliament uses new ones.

At the time of Dewar's death Glasgow Anniesland had the same boundaries for both the UK (where it's since been replaced) and Scotland (where it's been retained).

Does that explain it as a starting point? Timrollpickering 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ! (Tentatively) Er - yes, it does. At least for me because I'm really interested. The point, however, would be to add one line in the articles Scottish parliament and UK parliament, perhaps with a link to both revised lists of constituencies, so newcomers would be made aware of the change. Which is something I don't feel qualified to do, notwithstanding wikipedia's free for all policies. ;) --Anne97432 07:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC

Third oldest university article

Hi I just noticed your new article on the third oldest university debate via the UCL discussion. Just to say good work, I found it enlightening to get a summary of all the universities claims. I personally think UCL was the first even though it didnt get its royal charter till later. Heres a barnstar for your great contribution efforts to WP. LordHarris 13:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Spartacus Encyclopedia

Recently a user on Wikipedia decribed Spartacus as a "crappy" encyclopedia that was heavily biased. Spartacus has information in it that sheds certain American agencies in a possible bad light. I have seen other sharp critisism from what it appears to be of American origin implying that we should not use the material in Spartacus unless it is supported by an American encyclopedia or government agency.

Now there seems to be a reluctance to cite Spartacus in this subject area where the English encyclopedia was criticized.

Outside of the United States, is there any reputation that Spartacus is an unreliable source and not suitable for Wikipedia? RPJ 03:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

KCL

Hi. I notice you've altered several historical references to "King's College, London" to "King's College London". This is anachronistic, since the comma was used until fairly recently. A modern corporate identity name change shouldn't be backdated. -- Necrothesp 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Alumnus/a revert

Hi there. I'm very sorry but you wrote in your revert that my change from alumnus to alumnus/a was NOT discussed on the talk page. THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. It isn't MY fault that you are not a thorough wikipedian, my friend. I put a full two paragraph discussion of my logic on the talk page. Go look there. I think your revert was counterproductive, counterintuitive, and illogical. Please see my comments on the alumnus talk page AND see in the actual article my CITED information that i added under usage proving that this IS a correct usage. Please respond on the alumnus talk page or on mine. I did my part by clearly explaining the reasoning for the revert on the talk page and responsibly making sure there were no double redirects etc. Please do yours. Thank you very much. Nadsat 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The "discussion" was buried in a thread two and a half years ago, in a position where it was very difficult to spot. It certainly wasn't in any way prominent - and especially it wasn't anywhere near the section headed "The Recent Move" which was the last item on the talk page. Also it was hardly a discussion but a suggestion made late one night and then a move made in the small hours the next day without other contributions. Furthermore umpteen discussions have strongly deplored article names in a compound form that no-one uses. That is "counterproductive, counterintuitive, and illogical" (as is resorting to abuse as a substitute for argument). Can you point to another article that uses this style to create an artificial title? Timrollpickering 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't realize I should make a new discussion about it, apologies for that. YET, if you were thorough, you would have seen on my explanation of my edit I wrote "m (moved Alumnus to Alumnus/a: removing sexist language - see my comment on the talk page about it)" - So I instructed you to look on the talk page for my comments. Also, I am not sure if the "compound form" is used on any other pages, I will research that but it may take me awhile to gather a list, but this is almost a moot point anyway (*explanation in following sentences for this conclusion). Also typically the masculine forms and feminine forms have their own pages. "Man" has a page that refers to people with male gonads and "woman" refers to people with female gonads. Etc. Also, just because the majority of wikipedia has uncited material and material with no sources doesn't mean we should follow that trend. I think there is a strong case to be made that the use of the term "alumnus" for a page that talks about alumna and alumnae is illogical and not a good idea, just like uncited information. I believe this analogy makes sense because it illustrates that just because one circumstance is more prevalent, does not mean this circumstance is the right circumstance, that it should occur, or that we should be assume culpability for making it reoccur. Also, please see the alumnus article and the ONLY REFERENCE on the page which I added when I added the information and follow the link for the dicussion on the usage of alumnae/i and alumnus/a. Feel free to visit these links I found within seconds of using Google. For uses of alumnus/a: , , , AND for uses of alumni/ae: , , ,. These are just a few. Many of these links are from presitgious Ivy League colleges, instituations and nationally acclaimed boarding schools. Look, it's a compromise anyway - and a valid one at that. I could say use "alumna" as the title but that would be "counterproductive, counterintuitive, and illogical" as well. Even the a is just a "/a" here. Really, "alumnus/a" and "alumni/ae" are well established and respected. As I urged you before pick up a MLA Style Manual and check out what they deem "removing sexist language." I see no need to call it sexist (personally) or point fingers, language has faults, and they have been fixed. In the academic world and grammatical circles this usage is really preferred. Hope to hear from you soon. PS. (I don't want my tone to sound mean, I don't mean to be rude for the sake of being rude - just passionately logical, please read it as such). Nadsat 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, in case I didn't make it clear in my previous post - the above links should illustrate that the forms alumnus/a and alumni/ae (or alumna/us and alumnae/i) are not only used, but used quite frequently, since in your explanation of your revert of my edit, you stated that the form I used (alumnus/a) is not used, which is obviously incorrect. Nadsat 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophes and Quotes

You don’t like typographically correct apostrophes (’) and quotes (“”) or why do you remove them from articles as in ? Please don’t do that again. Thanks. — Richie 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that some of your own comments on your own talk page use them. Across Wikipedia the standard keyboard forms are far more in use, not least because they're much easier to type but also because the unicode problems make the others bad form for article titles. Look for example at (to take a random page on my watchlist) Hancock's Half Hour which consistently uses ' rather than ’ in an article with a lot of apostrophes in it. Timrollpickering 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not claim that I exclusively use typographically correct quotes and apostrophes. As you mentioned, the plain – but typographically wrong – characters are easier to type and do for discussions on talk pages. However, I think that articles deserve more attention to typography. And replacing typographic quotes by dumb quotes (as they're know as well) is definitely not easier than just leaving them in the article. — Richie 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion but not policy. Cleaning the article when other changes are being made is a useful time to tidy them. Is there any Wikipedia policy on this? Timrollpickering 11:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation where typographically correct quotation marks are used. Thanks. — Richie 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Which states there is no policy to always use typographic quotes and that either form is acceptable. Timrollpickering 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That’s cool, I didn’t know that. As I obviously didn’t even read the Manual of Style, I’d like to apologise for all this fuss. Have a nice day. — Richie 10:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Crest of Queen Mary, University of London

Appologies for the delay in getting back, have been away for a while. I can't seem to find where i got the image from, and searches on google etc show nothing so it might have been from a back issue of the article on QMCUL, so it might be best to delete it and replace it with the current logo. AlexD 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Current reckoning on Talk:Queen Mary, University of London reckons that it's a pre merger crest (and comparing it to the current crest it's easy to see elements that were carried forward). Maybe it's best to leave it where it is for potential use with the QMUL history is expanded. Timrollpickering 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a category for "boring and repetitious?"

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For work as an admin on CfD; that job I'm sure doesn't not suck. Thank you for the tedious and yet excellent work you have done. —ScouterSig 07:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Close of Cfd for Joey (TV series)

With only 5 people commenting, 2 for deletion and 3 for keeping, and there being no stated consensus of those 5 people, I think this would be better called a "No consensus (keep)". I'm concerned about this because categories such as these are clearly often deleted and the entire class of poorly populated eponymous categories is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. Personally, I inadvertantly missed the Joey discussion, and would have strongly voted to delete, as it seems pointless to keep. Considering our guidelines for categorzation, the low turn out, and the ongoing discussions, I'm wondering if I can convince you to change it to a "No consensus". Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 21:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a tricky one but when the only people voting to delete are the proposer and one other, whilst more people are voting to keep, I'm inclined towards "keep" rather than "no consensus" - the proposer aside something like 75% were for keeping. It's always going to be a close call when not that many people are commenting at all but one has to make a judgement on what is there as to what is the most likely and in such circumstances "keep" is closest. I'd be reluctant to change the closure myself though it can be reviewed by others.

Also if there wider discussions on over categorisation then it may be preferable to seek some suggestive directions and mass nominate similar (in this case TV show categories) to get a broader outcome rather than a one by process. Timrollpickering 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A flurry of CFD activity

Wow, thanks for all of the help over there. I was away for the holidays and it looks like a significant backlog accumulated in my absence. Luckily, Cydebot is making short work of that. --Cyde Weys 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD backups

If you ever see a backup on CFD of a day or more, it is probably because I've simply forgotten about it. Just leave me a note on my talk page and I should take care of it quickly. I almost never go more than a day without checking Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Noted

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded to Timrollpickering for his work as the human side of a well-oiled category maintenance machine. --Cyde Weys 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ...

I'm in Denver, snowed in ... at least the internet is up! -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks

Thanks! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CfD close request

Hi Tim,
As I initiated this CfD, I'm wary of closing it, so I'd be grateful if you'd consider doing so. My evaluation is that despite a few dissenting opinions, there is a consensus to rename these categories, especially as they relate to WP:MILHIST's domain (see Kirill Lokshin's comments).
If for any reason you'd rather not make the decision, I'll happily ask another of the CfD regulars. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

Just spotted your closing the above, so my thanks for that as well as for your generous barnstar!  (I guess you've been talking with the End-of-Year Bunny...?)  Chuckle, David (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar :) Secretlondon 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

and from me, too. Much appreciated - Adrian Pingstone 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thrice thanked! siarach 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a veritable orgasm of barnstars! Hopefully, we all had fun :-P Cyde Weys 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me too! —Whouk (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Returning thanks

..for the barnstar. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Orders, decorations..." CfD

Hi Tim,

Are you able to close the last CFD from Dec 17th? This one's been hanging around for a while and as I've made some alternative proposals I can't close it myself. Timrollpickering 03:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done; have left some notes there indicating the variations from a simple rename all per nom. Happy New Arbitrary Time-Point, David (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks for the barnstar - I've displayed it on my user page. Warofdreams talk 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Universities Infobox

Thanks for your views. I agree as far as using not photos for the top image goes (although I like it on the Oxford colleges). User:Freakofnurture, who disagreed with me over this in the first place, is also a keen deletionist of unsourced fair-use images. I did suggest to him that sources are easy to find in the case of University logos, but some of these have gone the way of all flesh already. This has happened to a few articles, not least those bearing images which were mis-tagged by a "clueless" user. These include Exeter, where a tooled up editor has already hoovered up the redlink. — mholland 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject advice

The WikiProject guide might be helpful here. Briefly: the main problem I see with the project is that it doesn't actually do anything internally; hence, there's little reason for people to hang around the project pages. Setting up assessment & peer review programs would probably help with this (as would more agressive recruitment). Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Administrators open to recall

• Re: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 28#Category:Administrators open to recall, No consensus sprang to my mind, but I suppose on the numbers the keeps were two ahead. Steve block Talk 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:US State Related Ships

Category:US State Related Ships just went through the cfd, one day after the cfd was removed, somebody put it back. They should a certin amount of time before that can be done. I request you remove the current cfd, based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:US_State_Related_Ships discussion that already took place. --71Demon 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Tim: Have taken a look at (and left a suggestion/request) the above and agree that (faulty syntax notwithstanding) it's a fray that's probably best avoided (unless, I suppose, the topic is close to heart). If noone else has already done so, I'll happily try closing it when the time arrives; by all means give me a prod if I seem to've overlooked it. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:FieldTurf installations on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:FieldTurf installations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this category, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lovelac7 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks...

...for the barnstar! very much appreciated. sorry for the lateness of this reply - I've been on holiday without the internet for the last few weeks. very nice surprise upon return though, thanks again. all the best, DJR (T) 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks, it made me laugh. :)--§hanel 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

CfD -keep closing

When you close a keep, or no consensus, you need to remove the CfD template from the category. See Category:Shopping malls in Saskatchewan for one that I just had to cleanup. Vegaswikian 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

CfD close

Hi Timrollpickering,

I think you were mistaken on your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1#Category:Palestine, as if I understood the comments correctly, most of the opposes were only for the renaming of one of the bloc Category:Political parties in Palestine. It seems most people did not oppose the others. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing was complicated by way too many "per" votes which in turn are "per", and several of the "per what X said &/per Y said" combinations frankly contradict one another on details (Soman's last comment was against virtually everything bar possible elections; Palmiro was against both the parties and the top category; EdJohnston was against the lot; bsnowball's comments implied being against the lot), making any consensus virtually impossible to determine. Timrollpickering 02:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat pruning

Re: "Category:Family Guy actors, Category:The X-Files actors, Category:Murder, She Wrote actors" - since 90% of the cat content is one-time actors, it'd probably be easiest if a bot was used to depopulate them, then it'd be easy to refill the bit that's necessary from the relevant "list of characters in <foo>" articles. The other way around is a lot more work actualy. >Radiant< 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think is a feasible idea? >Radiant< 09:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

By the time I first saw this it appears the bots had already done the job. I agree that this is probably the best way to depopulate so I'd recommend listing the new categories for emptying on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working (with a note that they should not be deleted) and then put in the handful that should be there. Timrollpickering 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIGTEN help

Hi. I noticed you created the template for WP Universities, and it works quite well. I'm have soem serious trouble creating a template for my WikiProject, WikiProject Big Ten (WP:BIGTEN). I have no idea how to add in the category at all, hopefully you can help. --Wizardman 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Either you fixed it already (if so thanks), or it fixed itself and I just had to give it time (if so nevermind) --Wizardman 06:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't help out the vote stackers

In my opinion you have made a serious error of judgement in closing the discussion in Category:Military brats as "no consensus". This discussion was subjected to the most blatant piece of vote stacking. I was about to revisit the discussion to point this out to the person closing the discussion (though I scarcely thought it would be necessary). Taking out the effect of the vote stacking I have rarely seen a category so emphatically rejected. Osomec 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It was also careless to leave both Category:Military brat and the plural form in place and populated. Osomec 15:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should disinterested parties bother with the discussion process, when administrators allow such shameless manipulation of the system by groups of interested parties acting in concert? Osomec 15:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history of all those opting to keep or delete, all are established users. This is not vote stacking in the method of using anonymous ISPs/brand new accounts. Arbitarily declaring some contributions to the discussion to be more valid than others in order to produce a particular outcome, even on a highly contentious debate, would be out of order and I will not do it. If you are not satisfied with the way the discussion was closed then I suggest you seek a review of the decision. Timrollpickering 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no confidence in your work as a closer on Wikipedia:categories for discussion

I came here to complain about a string of poor judgements and incorrect descriptions you have made when closing discussions on Wikipedia:categories for discussion, and the first thing I see is that you are unrepentent about a glaring error as referenced above. Do you think it is a good thing for discussions to be manipulated by pressure groups?

On the 4 January discussions alone you closed the discussion on immigrants to America/United States simply becuase the nominator withdrew the nomination, even though the current position of overlapping and confusingly named categories has very little support. What you should have done is keep it open for another 7 days so a sensible solution could be reached. You closed the discussion on Category:Indian flags as delete when it was actually a unamimous rename, and you ignored the trend of discussion on the Broadway actors category.

I would ask you to cease your work in this field as such low quality administration makes me wonder whether it is worth participating and may have the same effect on other users. I would recommend that you step back and restrict yourself to tasks that do not require difficult judgement calls. Chicheley 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Indian flags this was a genuine cock-up on my part when pasting the closing template. I have now corrected the closing message. The correct instructions were left first time for the bots handling the actual rename and Category:Flags of India is fully operational.

As for nominations being withdrawn by the proposer this has been a standard practice carried out on many previous CFDs by several closing, especially when a renomination is announced. The discussion should have been closed at that point but was missed.

Of the other two, Broadway actors was split down the middle between delete and rename, with only one addition in the last three days. Arbitarily discerning a trend would have been dodgey, especially as it was not a case where once deletion was suggestion every addition flocked that way. As one contributer suggested (and I see you have taken up the said said suggestion) deletion may be better considered separately. This is a current problem with CFDs as often the outcome is unanimously against the current name but there is no clear consensus to delete - in such circumstances one has to go for the rename option, since a new and focused decision on deletion can be taken.

I have said my piece on Military brats already. When a discussion is long and intense sometimes those who don't get the result they want will be unhappy. Pretty much everyone contributing to that discussion is an established Wikipedia user. Timrollpickering 14:35, 11 January 2007 (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.