User talk:Wotnow

Thanks for adding the very useful further reading link to City and South London Railway. When I wrote the article the best I could find was a rather dirty scan of the map from the back of the monograph which is currently included in the article. It looks like there's some excellent material in there to bolster the engineering information and also for the tunnelling shield article.--DavidCane (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I pursued the link to Greathead, then given the era in which he lived, wondered if I might find something via Internet Archive, which is how I arrived at the reference. I have found some good stuff from that era via that website. It can be a bit frustrating sorting through multivolume works when the same, undifferentiated title was used for multiple uploads. I found that for example with my searches for specific volumes of Encyclopaedia Britannica, when searching for the volume containing Hydropathy, for the Captain R.T. Claridge article. If you go up a level, you see it's this. While writing this reply, it occurred to me that the Encyclopaedia Britannica may have something on Greathead or the City and South London Railway, or both. A Google search using the terms:

encyclopaedia britannica "south london railway"

That led me to this.^[1] Given the engineering significance of the CSL Railway, there's a pretty good chance there's an article in at least one of the editions of the Encycl Brit. Indeed, I see the edition that I've cited below has a railways editor (Major Henry G. Prout; editor of The Railway Gazette, N.Y. see editor listings page n7). A note on the way I use the citation templates by the way. It's not accidental. Some citations, especially from that era, are complex and unwieldy. I don't care one iota about the underlying template, which is but a tool to use insofar as it's useful, as any engineer would concur. The object for me, always, is to get the display I'm seeking. Doesn't mean I always get it right. But it does mean I'm consciously thinking about what I'm trying to achieve with the tool at hand, which is a citation that is accurate and descriptive, but not too unwieldy to read. Wotnow (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you are surfing around various horse articles. Want to join WikiProject Equine? Aside from your interest in the topic, we need some more )pardon the pun) workhorses. If nothing else, we just had about 50 unreferenced BLP biographies dumped on us to fix, and even if we cut out all the ones on jockeys (which, as far as I am concerned, are WikiProject Thoroughbred Racing's problem), there are still quite a few, mostly of riders who competed in the Olympics, that need to be bailed out of deletion land. (On a cursory glance, most look basically accurate and not slanderous, just unreffed...) Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind invite. While I consider it a privilege to contribute in any way I can, the main limitation for me at present is that I have to pull back a bit from my Wikipedia activities. It is for this reason for example, that I've held back on getting further involved in the Worcestershire project, apart from passing input. How much I have to pull back remains to be seen. When I first began contributing to Wikipedia, I thought I might utilise my rather large library (which doens't have much on horses, apart from a few interesting essays by Stephen Jay Gould pertaining to their evolution and what we can thus learn about evolution and the writing thereof - see refs on my user page), especially prior to culling it. However, the culling operation is going to overtake my original aspirations, with a couple of dozen books, hundreds of articles and thousands of abstract printouts already culled, and still no visible progress other than that which I personally know I've made (and many empty file holders of various sorts). So my contributions to Wikipedia are, and unfortunately must be, less continuous, some of that itself being tidy-ups or attempts at tidy-ups of my own contributions. But I can't currently predict beyond this. Wotnow (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FI, if you feel so inclined, given what appear to be your areas of interest, the various British Isles pony breeds, have a lot of articles in need of work. For the basic list, start at Mountain and moorland and go from there. The Welsh pony article is in pretty good shape, but the rest, well, aren't all that great. Montanabw^(talk) 00:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Captain John Porteous; Captain William Mackintosh; Captain Samuel Jarvis; Captain Will Hollyday; Capt. Marty Welch , , , , ,

Hi Wotnow, I happened to see your message on Rich Farmbrough's talk page. FYI, what you're looking to do is entirely covered at Wikipedia:Requested moves. However, also please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people); generally we don't put people's titles, ranks, etc. into an article name, and generally we do use a space between initials. All the best—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Glenfarclas. Since all this unnecessary kerfuffle, I have looked at the naming conventions.

I chose the name of the article for the simple reason that it is the name by which Claridge became known in the literature, which becomes very self-evident as one wades through the stuff. Indeed it was only the act of working on this article that I found the material giving him his full name.

So I chose the article name on the basis of logic alone, before I was aware of the naming conventions. Fortunately for logic, the naming conventions arrive at a similar conclusion, thus, regarding qualifiers: "This is rather a practical than a principal rule, so the general principle of 'the unambiguous name a person is best known by' easily takes precedence." It also states "If a qualifier is used in the title of a page where the content is, it is never abbreviated." Again, I came to the same conclusion when naming the article, but by logic alone.

I do however appear to stand corrected regarding spacing between initials. I saw "There is no consensus for always using spaces between initials, neither for never using them", and left it at that. But looking again, I see the next sentence is: "However, in most Wikipedia articles where the subject uses two consecutive initials, the space between initials is used; see Literary initials." Checking that link, there is a list of examples, which in fact I was trying to find by various means prior to us getting to this point.

But in that process, I did find Captain E.G. Beaumont, which has both the initials without spacing, and the use of Captain before the name. Also, that article, and some others with Captain in the name, existed some time prior to the article which I created, and are not as substantive in content. Why have they been overlooked? I have no opinion on whether their names should remain, as I don't know without reviewing the literature - and nor does ANY editor - whether that reflects their general usage or not.

A Google check can help of course. And since this kerfuffle has arisen, I did a Google check, which gave more returns for Captain R.T. Claridge than for say Richard Tappin Claridge. But I already knew that, from the time and effort I spent researching for the article. So if anyone should know it's me (and if logic is allowed to prevail, this conclusion is unavoidable, even if one thinks I'm just an obnoxious bastard), and I wasn't asked at any point in the proceedings. Never mind etiguette, this is basic logic. Wotnow (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is to inform you that I have raised an RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Suspend_replacing_of_.3Cref.3E_by_.7B.7Br.7D.7D_in_citations on the issues at our recent discussion at Talk:Arthropod. --Philcha (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. I could see that the whole thing is being fuelled not so much by good faith, but by an agenda that involves subtle trouble-making that has the intended effect of raising the ante and creating an artificial crisis. I've been around a bit in life, and seen this in politics, organisations, society, and even some criminal fraternities. And in all of those cases, good faith was not forthcoming, but skulduggery certainly was. Wotnow (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC).

After working through the various discussions, it seems to me that the main issue was not skulduggery or deliberate trouble-making on any individual's part, but rather, mutual suspicion on the part of the parties about each other's underlying motives. That can lead to one or both parties raising the ante, but outcome prospects are better if mutual suspicions or apprehensions can be allayed. Wotnow (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

P.s. I have responded in more detail on your own talk page partly because it's easier for you to find it there, but - I confess - partly because the next thing I have to figure out for my own talk page is how to archive earlier sections. I've had a brief look at the two main methods, and I'll be aiming for the one that keeps the revision history intact and allows for searches (which I think rules out the cut-and-paste method). So I know loosely what I want to achieve. I have also, in perusing various talk-pages, encountered one which has a search field atop the archive list - I will want to check that out further.

There is another thing I want to achieve, which is the sort of thing I personally would find helpful when visiting a talk page with archives. I want to list the titles of the talk topics with links to the archive, so someone visiting the talk page doesn't have to open the archive to see what's there. Thus, the section on merging the brachial-plexus articles would have a link, which someone can see at a glance and check if they want to. I don't find anonymous archive lists helpful as a reader, and so I don't want to do that to others myself. As I write this, I realise that's probably easy enough to do. I have already provided links in discussions and on my user page to archived sections of talk pages. So conceptually I'm developing a picture. The next thing I have to do is set aside a block of time - for I know not how long it will take, but obviously my first effort will take longer than any subsequent efforts, and may involve some error. So there you go. Just so you know. Of course, all of this tells you, or anyone else reading, areas I'm not familiar with, which includes things like automated process. My impression is that you have more experience and knowledge on some of those aspects of Wikipedia, which makes your own feedback and perspective very valuable, especially if you have made the effort yourself to check out background facts. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your input, although I'm not sure exactly what to do with it. I agree that it is poor form to (e.g.) remove all article from a category at CfD (it is explicitly acknowledged as such.) I would only do that in the case of what is clearly abusive/inappropriate/etc. categorization. (E.g. I recall one time when something like Category:Milfs was up for deletion. In that case, I removed the articles and then listed them in a comment at the CfD. That way, editors could see what was in the category before making a decision and articles would not be in a patently inappropriate category. Deletion was a foregone conclusion, of course.) In the case of these TfDs, since all of the templates were already deprecated and several of them (e.g. Template:Harvard reference) were redundant, I felt like it was entirely warranted to either remove them from the article namespace, mark them TfD, or both. I am not familiar with any discussion of the intersection of deprecation with the TfD process, but I would be happy to read any guidelines regarding it. I hope this is a useful response to you; if you feel like writing back, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Your reply is good to hear (read) and it makes complete sense now.

It seems to me like the styling of templates is a matter that could be easily solved with user preferences and if someone really wants the Harvard/APA/Chicago/MLA style, that could be achieved in a pretty straightforward manner as long as the different pieces of information are presented. I am on the same page as you to the extent that I don't really care about the difference between:

• Author – "Title". Journal, 1(5) Publisher Press (1997), pp.67–87
• "Title", by Author. Journal vol. 1, issue 5 (1997), from Publisher Press (pp. 67–87)

Or basically any other combination of that same data. Honestly, what's the difference? (Also, those examples are completely arbitrary and I'm sure that neither of them conform to any standard.) Again, thanks for your input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow , I found the {{r}} template on that article, and figured it makes sense to use whatever citation style was in place, per MOS. I think it's a reasonable mechanism, cleaner than the old one, and I see no reason to revert to the old way in that article. If there is a software problem with a bot, the bot should be fixed. In this case, the short template is easier to edit with since it's less cluttered, so removing it would make life harder for editors. I think it would be much easier to fix the bot. But thanks for letting me know about this. Crum375 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I only now noticed you actually reverted some of those templates to the old style. Please do not change template or citation style in existing articles without obtaining consensus for it, per WP:CITE: "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your latest message, I am not aware of any of the politics or personalities. I just know that this method and style are easier to use, easier to edit, and the templates were in the article when I got there, so I continued using them. Please don't revert the style without consensus, per WP:CITE. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wotnow, and welcome to Wikiproject Worcestershire! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. We're sure your input will be much appreciated and you enjoy contributing here and being a Worcestershire Wikipedian If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, and be bold with your ideas!

Hi wotnow. There is a recent discussion going on at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style that seems to be right up your street. I haven't read it all because as you know, I'm more of a content researcher & writer than a Wiki software engineer, but I thought you would find it interestig. i'm sure you will havesomething to contribute to the discussion. Cheers; --Kudpung (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that the American campaign against the British pronunciation of British place names, by British Wikipedeia authors and British citizens has been relaunched. I think this campaign is deceitful and goes against an admin's remit. I might not be so prepared to let things rest this time round, especially as the editors concerned are oblivious of the sensitivities they may be affronting, and even though I am one editor who abhors opening cans of worms. I may call an RfC and will look forward to your support.--Kudpung (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi wotnow. Because you are the expert with citations, I wonder if you could do us a favour and put all the Betts references in List of Old Malvernians into harvard style. BTW, I will be in the UK during April, if you fabcy meeting up do let me know.--Kudpung (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my query at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Linking citations with bibliography. The article has a large number of references, it's best to get advance agreement on a change like this before investing a huge amount of effort. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref No.18 in Malvern Water has a naked URL, but for some reason I can't locate it in the text. I wonder if you could check it out please. Then I suggest we try to get this article through a GA review. What do you think?--Kudpung (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi wotnow.

I've only taken a superficial look at your recent changes to World population (the milestones section), but it seems good, and I'd like to point something out to you that you may not be aware of: This section used to be next to the doubling sequences section, and both sections used to reference the page World population estimates. I think the reference to that page should be re-added to the milestones section, and I think some of your recent work would be more appropriately transferred to the estimates page.

--Nø (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. First let me thank you for all your help in finding the technical sources for Malvern Water. I hope the article passes but I have the feeling that the closer we get, the reviewer thinks up more things it needs. I think its scope and size is quite adequate, especially when 2-paragraph articles about M-Way service stations get the green cross, and I am not going to turn it into a fan page for a local artist, or into a collection of local action trivia from the local newspaper.
On another matter, there might be a problem brewing up for a new flavour of Worcestershire Sauce, and I might need your help if it comes to blows. If you have time, please check these out: Talk:Worcestershire sauce, and User talk:Diti. The user is French and quite new and may not quite understand. Do keep the pages on your weatchlist if you can, because I have put a lpt into that article, and while I don't of course lay any claims to ownership of it, like Malvern Water, once I have cleaned it up, with your help I would like to make it yet another GA for our Worcs project. --Kudpung (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your comment. I've replied as best I can for now. I think escalation is probably avoidable, and collaboration is even possible, if notin the Worcestershire sauce article, then elsewhere. I presume by "M-Way" you mean 'motorway'? Which M-way article? Regards Wotnow (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor was led into believing that my comments were disrespectful. I have moved his diatribe to my talk page as per Wikipedia instructions. The instigator of all this, is ironically an editor who, unprovoked, leaves the most vile of personal abuse on other people's pages! The diffs are the proof, but I'm not one to run to Aunty ANI on every silly or vindictive prank.

The very short GA is Strensham services. I mentioned this because I rightly or wrongly get the impression that every time we address a reviewer's request, new ones are made. In my opinion, Malvern water was practically GA before we started (apart from a couple of technical tweaks), is of adequate length, broad in coverage, and has balanced content for each of its sections, and more than enough images - all GA criteria that have long since been addressed and remedied if required. I know it's useless to argue with a reviewer, unless there is a strong consensus, but there are not enough active editors on this article even to obtain an opinion from. personally, I don't care two hoots if it passes or not - I was doing it for the project, not to get a feather i my own cap.--Kudpung (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. To me, it doesn't look like we're too far from passing. The reviewer outlined specific issues, and added the Fixed tag as you addressed most items. That shows two things to me. Firstly, goodwill on the reviewer's part. And secondly, a fair bit of effort on your part, which goes a long way to explaining how you feel about the apparent never-ending process, because large efforts are not indefintitely sustainable. When we did the Malvern article, we were sharing the effort amongst three primary editors, but it was still a significant effort for each of us. The difference was that when one of us was taking a break from it to get on with other things, one or both of the other editors was beavering away, culminating in a burst of effort from all of us to get across the line. To attempt the same sort of thing between with less editors and less time per editor, seems pretty daunting, and questionable in terms of return-for-volunteer-effort. We the editors will always feel that we've done more than enough, because only we know the amount of actual time spent finding resources, reading them, and working them into the article. Even a 'minor' edit can mask hours of effort. So we're always going to have a biased perspective on the matter.

Nevertheless, there's not a lot left to the reviewer's list, conceptually at least. We've added a few more secondary resources. We've expanded a bit on the interest groups. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

On of the most fierce debates on Wiki policy is about what determines a truly WP:RS. I like to see references cleanly listed in the {{reflist}} sections of articles, and I've always admired your tenacity in searching for refs, and experimenting with ways of displaying them. However, I'm sometimes still confused, after all these years of editing, about primary sources, secondary sources, print sources, web sources, etc., but I use what I think is right, and tend to err on the safe side (which means in fact that I don't use a lot of sources that other editors would). As a traditional academic, I prefer of course the print approach, but do realise that after fifteen years of Internet, we must give electronic storage its dues. Now, you, as our resident expert on sourcing and referencing, can help me here. You'll have noticed that during a GA, very often one of the problems is that web sources that were used during the creation of an article have since become either dead links, or the original page no longer exists. This is a shame because it often concerns pages on local government sites that would otherwise have been considered 'safe' sources. It suddenly dawned on me while editing a Wellingborough related article (David Frost) that we could of course be accessing those deleted pages through Wayback Machine. There even exists a template for using it, although the Frost article is the first time I have ever seen it used. I know about Wayback of course, but I had never considered using it in a Wikipedia context. I would be interested to know what your thoughts would be on this on this.--Kudpung (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your kind comments. I'll be brief for now, as I'm due to be interrupted by pending tasks. I confess that I've not tried the wayback machine other than to peruse it a couple of times and then leave it alone as a possible distraction (for me that is). However, I actually wrote something on my strategy for dealing dead links. I just did a search and fortuantely found it at the talk page of the Nine-banded Armadillo. For now, it's easier to point you to that. See what you think. One of my intentions is to try to pull together my various strategies into a succinct, coherent, and easy-to-find summary on my user page. So your query is a good prompt for that. Kind regards Wotnow (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Wotnow, there is some very good advice in that posting - do go ahead and pull all those bits of advice together if you have time, and maybe you can write a special mainspace article at WP:ESSAYS about finding sources.--Kudpung (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome Kudpung. In the meantime, I've incorporated the relevant paragraph into Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire/Referencing. If the information is grouped into key areas, we or others can capitalise on this in the future. Regards Wotnow (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotow. There seelms to be a consensus that we have all done as much as we can to elevate the article to GA. ASFAIK, there are no guidelines that state that GAs have to be long, or have illustrations for every section. I concur that we appear to have addressed all the reviewer's points. The reviewer accorded an exceptionally long time for this GA - do you think he may have forgotten it?--Kudpung (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he might need a gentle reminder. According to his contribs, he's still around doing 30 - 40 edits a day.--Kudpung (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You might be right. I've left a brief comment on his talk page. Regards Wotnow (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer has kindly replied, and the article has passed. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and congratulations and more thanks and appreciation for helping get this article to GA! --Kudpung (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. User:Abacchus1974 and I have been working for several months on Malvern College to bring it up to standard. As our resident citations guru, if you have time would you like to check and format (if necessary) the refs? I'll then nominate the article for a GA review. BTW, all your edits are currently showing as 'minor'. I'm sure this was not your intention; you can change this by unchecking the box at: my preferences/Editing/Mark all edits minor by default. regards, --Kudpung (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. this might interest you.--Kudpung (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I concur. I've had less to do with Dana Boomer than yourself, but I think she plays a constructive role in Wikipedia, and should perform the role of admin as well as anyone can. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks as if the close will be a foregone conclusion, but it's nice of you to have taken an interest and done whatever you thought was necessary :) --Kudpung (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. I've nominated mMlvern College today for GA review. There's quite a backlog over there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that reviewers take things in order. The low hanging fruit seems to go first. --Kudpung (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. I don't know how helpful I'll be in the lead-up, or the forseeable future, as my library culling process is about to kick up a gear or two. On reflection, a 20ft container is probably about the size of my beast. I've been dealing so far only with photocopies of books and articles, some magazines, notes, essays and literally reams of abstract printouts. Much of what I've cited in various Wikipedia articles has come from this, or at least kicked off brief forays into various articles, yet they are a very small fraction of that which I've culled. While some books have been culled, the best I've done so far is to clump a few hundred of 'don't keep' ones into one area, ready for the rapid and ruthless phase. So a crunch of some sort is coming for better or worse, and my forays into Wikipedia are likely to be increasingly sporadic, with perhaps occasional input bursts.

Malvern College looks to me like it shouldn't require much work to pass GA. There may be a request for citations for one or two sentences at the end of paragraphs (see e.g. Alumni section). They'll probably be coverable by citations already used in the article, so it's just a matter of capitalising on them. I may have a quick foray to see if I can find some resources to add to a 'Further reading' list.

As I write this, I've just done a quick Google search, and found a Malvern Register 1865-1904, which I'll add. I'll probably try to chuck a couple of citations from it into the article - one facilitating a primary citation with full reference, and another to provide a template for subsequent citations. I'll not be able to do much beyond that at this time. As for the alumni bit, one of you Malvernians will be in the best position to capitalise on the Register or any other such resources, as you'll recognise any significant names instantly, which is much quicker than anything I could do. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've done something basically illegal - I've refactored your user page.... --Kudpung (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wotnow. You have new messages at Talk:List of Old Malvernians.
Message added 03:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your input would be most welcome. Kudpung (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow . In order to more accurately interpret Wikipedia policy, it has been suggested that we rename the Malvern, Worcestershire page. Please see the proposal at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Suggested page move where you are welcome to voice your opinion. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. We have a new editor who is keen to do more research for Malvern. Do check out his suggestions if you have time, and chime in with your thoughts. There may be some issues with footnotes. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is now nominated as a WP:GAC. Get ready for battle :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. A Worcestershire Project page has now been taken on by a reviewer for Good Article after a very long wait. Several points need addressing, but the page has not been rejected as an immediate fail. If you have time, please see Talk:Evesham, and if you can address any of the points listed, I'm sure that between us we can get it through to GA. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As you'll be aware I have managed to make some contributions, although I'll have to constrain myself from hereon. Remarkably, I actually got to cite a book on English dialects which I mentioned in a previous discussion. When I was briefly shown that book all those years ago, I never imagined that: (a) I'd one day cue myself in to finding the book on via an internet that didn't then exist; and (b) I'd then peruse and cite that book in an editable database that also didn't exist. Wotnow (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Golly Wotnow, that was a brilliant speech you put on Michael P. Barnett's page. You should make a Wikipedia essay out of it! --Kudpung (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. I was reasonably pleased to be able to formalise a few thoughts off the top of my head. It's always nice to realise one's brain has chugged away on the data it's been fed and synthesised some of it. By far my best ever abstract (and one which matches any good abstract on the topic - I know this as I've kept an eye on the field) was written more or less off the top of my head, after 6 months solid research, and half-way into a year-long project (on the evolution of taste and various biocultural factors). In the case of my thoughts here and there on Wikipedia, what I'm trying to do is formalise loose thoughts, and put them out there for reality-testing. If I'm around long enough, I'll try to pull something together at some time. But if all else fails, I've understood a few things, and formalised a few thoughts. Regards Wotnow (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be glad if you could help me out with the monster that is the Finnhorse -- it's now having a Peer Review, and any help at all will be appreciated. Pitke (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Last Goon Show of All-punchline lead-up.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. I listed this at peer review because I thought it would lie there for weeks before someone picked it up. However, it was retrieved in seconds by User:Tim riley for whom I did the peer review for his Elgar article some time ago that later passed FA. There is no hurry for this PR and there are no deadlines, but I'm just letting you know in case you would want to help out with some tweaks. I am flying to the UK (Barnards Green) on 19 July and will be staying for 2 months. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Flying to the UK! I am impressed. Most people take a plane. Barnard's Green eh? I thought he was more of a dirty yellow. I hope he gets better. I'm intermittently working on the Zetor tractor article, in between a range of other challenging tasks relating to a complete life change, the success or failure of which is yet to be seen (time alone will tell). But I certainly will have a look at the Elgar article. If there is a change or escalation in the time-frame before I get to it, please let me know and I'll prioritise as best I can. Wotnow (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry , my fault, I meant the Malvern article of course - the review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Malvern, Worcestershire/archive1. Wikipedia:Peer review/Malvern, Worcestershire/archive1. I needs all the refs briniging into one style for one thing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. I'm just letting you know that I have submitted List of Old Malvernians for peer review as a first step to possible Featured List. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. I'll keep an eye out and see if I can contribute. My contributions have been very sporadic of late, apart from some forays into the Jackie Evancho article and a bit on speech and acoustics (I just use this stuff for search terms and leads etc., and then I'm off on my next learning adventure - if I can contribute back on the way, I do of course) as I follow the career of this remarkable talent, and along the way learn something about classical/opera and other singers. I'll see if I can pick up my contributions a bit this month. Who knows - I sure don't: too much uncertainty going on. Wotnow (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref. Can you find out anything about her activities in 2009 and early 2010? When exactly did she meet Foster? How many concerts did she do with him before AGT? There are a bunch of YouTube videos, but we need newspaper articles that mention dates, etc. I don't want to add too much, because the article's already a little wordy, but we sort of rush from where she saw "Phantom of the Opera" to Prelude to a Dream and AGT. It would also be interesting to find out the real reason why they cancelled the Carnegie Hall appearance. I am amazed that they chose to do that while following through with all the other holiday appearances that she did in NYC and elsewhere. BTW, her video at the Chefs for Seals event, with the baby seal doll sticking out of her pocket is criminally cute. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I see you've begun fleshing the article out a bit. I'll do what I can. Sorry about the delayed reply. My editing can be a bit sporadic at present due to my circumstances. Whether that will improve (or I take a one way walk into the hills) remains to be seen. The answer to the Carnegie Hall appearance may lie in a deliberate need to pace out rather than 'burn out' her development. Her adult voice depends largely (although not exclusively) on how it is managed during the transition from childhood (although I daresay I'm saying nothing you don't already know). Or it may be some other reason, such as clashing of commitments/preparation for other commitments. I think I saw the Chefs for Seals video. I've checked out a few. People find Evancho to be inescapably adorable: such talent, such an intelligent girl, and such an unspoilt attitude. She represents the idyllic childhood, and is a stark contrast and antidote to the misery of children such as Nujood Ali, to whom no one pays any real attention apart from briefly jumping on the bandwagon when she hit the headlines. Of course much of that comes down to helplessness. Which is one reason people are so enthralled with the likes of Evancho: here we see someone whose life is unfolding in a way that represents what we wish the world could be like. Wotnow (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! No rush - there's no deadline. We'll just keep improving the article little by little. BTW, I think we should take out the stuff about the tonsils. It's just something Jackie said once. It's not on her website or later interviews, and the research paper that we cite to is terrible. As for Carnegie Hall, it would have been a very prestigious world record, so I think there must have been a very specific scheduling conflict. I like your analysis of Evancho. I would add that she instinctively shapes her phrases in a very musical and attractive way, and that her natural technique, especially in moving from low to high register is thrilling in its gentle way. Here's the baby seals video.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I have no objection to the removal of the note about the tonsils. The enlarged vocal chamber will account for the anomaly of an adult-like voice emanating from a child, which is part of what captured people's attention. However, the sheer talent of this girl is what kept people's attention and captured their imagination. My suggestion regarding the note is that you leave it there until some other useful, but not central, comment arises for which the notes section can be utilised. Then simply co-opt my note and delete the bit about the tonsils. The relevance of such a strategy is that the article structure remains stable, without too much jarring change. I think stability of structure assists in reduction of vandalism (major restructuring to facilitate large amounts of accumulated info notwithstanding - but those are specific efforts rather than periodic restructures). But whatever you choose to do re the tonsils is okay with me. I've understood that aspect and created cues for further research on the topic, which is much of what I'm about. Wotnow (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, leaving the note structure for now is a good idea. On another topic, tomorrow is the Pittsburgh concert, so maybe there will be news about it. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless multiple sources contain substantially different info, I think it's better to just give one good source for each concert. Also, I don't think it is worth mentioning that any particular concert sold out - most of her concerts sell out. So I moved that info up where it applies more generally. Also, if you don't think it's worth mentioning that Pittsburgh featured its own soloists and chorus in separate numbers, feel free to remove the sentence. After all, nearly every venue has provided chorus, and this article is about Evancho. But I put the sentence in so you could see it and decide. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm under time pressure at present. My main approach in such circumstances is to find references and drop them into the nearest relevant place in an article. My suggestion is that other editors check out the refs to see whether and how they can utilise them, as sometimes they facilitate the filling of gaps or expansion of other sections. Wotnow (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for you: Jackie with the Pittsburgh Opera orchestra. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gracias (or whatever other flora you favour!). You've just made my day. I will endeavour to add a couple of refs in a few minutes. Bear with me - time pressure again, so I may not be able to expand much on them myself at present. The objective is to facilitate expansion or filling in of gaps. Have a look at the refs and see what you can make of them (sometimes I'll get it right. Sometimes I won't. No problem). For my part, I should have more time to do more with them later. Wotnow (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll just park this link here for now. It should help fill in the David Foster connection Wotnow (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I really suggest deleting the mention of Audible images. It's commercial information that doesn't add much to the story. I've deleted it, and you've put it back in, so I won't delete it again myself, but I think we should try to keep things as lean and mean as possible. You can keep the citation, though, which contains the info.... All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi-yo Ssilvers! (Unless you know this catchphrase, you'll need to read on via the link). I had thought it might be of some interest or use, but perhaps not. I'll knock it out. The quote by the recording engineer may fit at some point in commentary about Jackie's pitch-perfect musicality and intellect from a young age. That's the essence of what he was saying, and what David Foster is saying when he says she "glues herself to the music". A section on this may be warrented as the data mounts - I suspect it's getting there already, hence the quote from back then. The nearest existing relevant section is that on critical reception. Regards Wotnow (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm old enough to remember "Hi-yo Silver!" I don't think we need these rather self-serving statements by producers about how Evancho is supposed to be easy to work with. A producer's job includes saying nice things about their clients. These statements, even if true, are not substantive. Better to mention independent reviews of the albums themselves. As times goes on, I think we will get some specific statements about Evancho's musicianship, style and capabilities that will be far more useful to discuss than the subjective opinions (or self-serving lies) of producers. I bet that, before long, someone will write a book about her. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Aye. I see she has a mention in one book already, although it could hardly be called an in-depth critical analysis. Nevertheless, the context of usage is valid and pertinent. If you knew nothing about her and didn't see who was singing, you'd experience a (pleasant) expectancy violation. There's a word which captures that, but I can't bring it to mind. I notice the book went to the printers before the Carnegie Hall cancellation was publicised though. Wotnow (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the word "spoiler", or something fancier? LOL re: Carnegie Hall. I don't think we need to cite anything in the ...for Dummies series. It does underline her popularity, but I think we have already done that. And, as I say, there will be lots more written about J.E. soon. Her new holiday album will be out on November 1. Also, I will not be surprised if she is nominated for a Grammy for Dream With Me. She appears to be in Japan right now, according to her Twitter feed! Did she really jump right on a plane after the Pittsburgh concert? Gah! Also, the Robert Redford movie is filming now in Vancouver (though it's not scheduled for release until 2013). Las Vegas is coming up.... So, I think we can be selective in what we include. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not "spoiler". That would fit for an unpleasant expectancy violation. No, this is a pleasant expectancy violation. I tried to cue myself in with an email to a friend, but could only say the following: 'There's a word I'm looking for where one's expectations are pleasantly violated: as in "oh, a cute little kid. What am I going to cook for dinner tonight - eh!? wot!? holy cow!?"' Perhaps I was mistooken and there is no word. I just perused a thesaurus, and most words one could use can have either positive or negative connotations, depending on the context used. Perhaps astounding, as in 'he/she/they was/were astounded': that word seems to be less context-dependent such that the automatic assumption is of positive connotations. I begin to see what the likes of Douglas Hofstadter and that Wittgenstein fellow were on about re things like context-free language or lack thereof, and the sheer difficulty of adequately describing phenomena in a fashion that is understandable without oversimplifying it in the process and thus reducing our understanding to a simplistic caricature of the more complicated and confouding phenomena - this is of course the crux of John Barrow's "Groucho Marx Effect". As for her location, I can only paraphrase Muhammad Ali's famous reply re Vietnam: Do I know where Jackie Evancho is? Yeah I know where Jackie Evancho is. She's on the internet! (you may recall he famously said "yeah I know where Vietnam is. It's on t.v." Which was profoundly true for many people watching the world's first televised war. Now of course, the internet prevails). Wotnow (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You were right. She is in in Japan. I guess part two is to follow. She's still on the internet! Wotnow (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Part II of Japan TV appearance and Part III. Notice the smiley face that Jackie uses in her signature. More Japanese TV. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Serendipity? Or maybe just "happy surprise". LOL! Yes, she's an internet star and, like the soldiers in Vietnam, also on the front lines. BTW, here is a very interesting clip of the music director of the Pittsburgh Opera talking about what it was like to get ready for Jackie's concert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNlRTXKXGvA I would definitely not link it in the article, because he doesn't say anything about Jackie or her musicianship (he could have said that he was lucky that she is the real thing!) but it shows how dangerous this concert series has been - performing with all these live orchestras that she had never met until the day of the performance could have led to a major mishap this summer. It is lucky that Jackie is confident enough to lead and trust that these conductors will follow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. There is material that could be used. One would want to create a separate paragraph on what goes into preparing for these concerts. Key points: two days for the orchestra to familiarise itself with the performer's material; but actual practice with the singer was only about three hours prior to the concert and limited to a portion of her songs, with the remainder being performed unrehearsed. These are in fact significant points especially given the age of the singer, as noted by Walker. Wotnow (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I would put it in the List of Jackie Evancho concert tours article rather than the main article. Her concert tours have, so far, not been the most important part of her career, and so much information about them would, IMO, not be a balanced approach. Plus, I think her article will just keep getting longer and longer, and we need to work hard to keep it down to a reasonably readable size. But the concert tours article is a good place for it. Also, that article could use some updating if you feel like working on it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For finally getting some decent citations into Fainting Game Ex nihil (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! (Stumbles, trips, spills beer and faints) Wotnow (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my inexact term in the camel page update. Activist (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw Jackie's Lincoln Center concert last night. She was fantabuloso, of course! I doubt that Avery Fisher Hall has often heard such a roar from an audience. After her encore (Pie Jesu), she was called back onstage over and over until they turned on the lights to make us leave! She sang Angel so beautifully, and O Mio Babbino Caro was perhaps the best I ever heard her sing it. Photos here! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A Dustbin of Milligan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have finally got round to listing it for review as a Featured Article. All help needed! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Worcestershire - one of England's oldest and still existing (with some minor boundary changes) ceremonial and political shires, famous for its nearly 1000 year old cathedral, the River Severn, the AONB of the Malvern Hills, some of the oldest schools in the country, England's fastest growing university, apples, pears, cider and cricket, and of course its world famous sauce. The Wikiproject is now in need of some attention. Created 12 years ago, this project amassed a huge resource for editors working on all kinds of articles and categories related in some way or another to the county. Kudpung is more or less retired from Wikipedia getting on for 2 years ago and it would be good if a group of editors could get it up to date and continue to maintain it.
Opt out of this message list here.
WikiProject Worcestershire 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Malvern College has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow. As you know, due to the many incursions of unwanted or inappropriate content, this article was sadly delisted from GA. Please see messages at talk:Malvern College and lend a hand tidying it up if you can. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)