User talk:JeremyA/Archive04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 11 October 2005 and 10 February 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Thank you. JeremyA 05:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Graphs of results[edit]

  • Looking at the thumbnails, I prefer the Sheffield Hallam one. Although the colours are somewhat duller, the lines are bolder and easier to see. I think the Sheffield Hillsborough one looks slightly prettier at full size, but only a small minority of users will look at them on this scale. I'm thinking of adding further results back to at least 1918 and perhaps 1885, so it's up to you whether you want to make whatever changes you decide upon now or wait for the earlier results - either way, they are a very useful addition to the article. Warofdreams talk 09:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the note about the percentages not adding up - I've missed out the Liberal candidate! Will add as soon as I can get the exact numbers. Warofdreams talk 15:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeremy![edit]

I miss you... how are you, dear? Please, visit me whenever you can :) Hugs! Shauri smile! 23:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

braininfo.rprc.washington.edu[edit]

So what do we do about this? This site keeps getting spammed into the neuroanatomy articles. USers User:128.95.153.42, User:71.112.151.194, and User:Iouliak seem to be the culprits. Shall we just keep removing these links as the crop up? Is there any other way to prevent them from continually re-adding them? semiconscious (talk · home) 23:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another user (63.81.21.195) is spamming a similar, but differnt link. Check out the link to the user contributions page to see where they placed them. I already revert all of them once, but it's a pain. I figured an admin with "rollback" could do it easier. Semiconscious 11:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reinsert one of the links you removed. It seems after some discussion the user decided to directly link to pages of images of specific structures, which is much less spam and much more useful. What are your thoughts? Semiconscious 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to chime in here (not that I was invited), but I think the link is actually useful as long as it directs you straight to the image. In this case I think it is OK to keep. Nrets 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Central[edit]

It's a good question whether it was a revival or a new constituency in 1983. While I've not yet been able to find the boundaries of the old constituency, it must have covered a far smaller area than the present one. With slum clearances, by 1945 its population was below 20,000. As a result, I suspect that this area fell entirely within the current Sheffield Central. The 1950 changes saw major boundary changes for every constituency in Sheffield, so I don't think that indicates any overlap with Heeley; the 1955 changes again saw major boundary changes throughout Sheffield, so I suspect that most or all of the old Central ended up in Park. I don't think it would be wrong to describe it as a revival of the old constituency, but perhaps it would be best to present two graphs, as the social make-up of the area changed so much in the intervening period. Warofdreams talk 17:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some editing you did on 8th November[edit]

Hi Jeremy, I noticed you edited out some information on the Bakewell page on 8th November. You referred to the the information as "Tourist brochure" elements. Out of curiosity - what's wrong with that if the information is accurate, interesting ( at least to some people ) and potentially useful? In the case of the edits you did - each of these applied i.e. accuracy, interesting ( at least to some ) and potentially useful. And yes - it was me who put the information on so you could argue I'm being defensive although as it happens I'm not. I'm genuinely interested in the somewhat arbitrary nature of taste. That apart - you should see Bakewell today - frosty and sparkling in bright winter sunshine. I might go and feed the Canada geese - or play golf. Best wishes Denis Mooney 84.12.51.195 09:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying here because you are editing from a dynamic IP) The beauty of wikipedia is that if I don't like what you write I can change it, and if you don't like what I write you can change it. One of the failings is that it is often difficult to explain the full reasons for such an edit in a short edit summary—so I apologise for being a bit flippant. The reason for my edit was that I felt that the material that I removed was not 'encyclopedic'. It is likely that if I picked 100 wikipedians at random and asked them what was encyclopedic I would get 100 very different answers, however wikipedia tries to address this by reaching consensus on how to write articles. In particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOT are useful pages here—these state that wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view and that wikipedia is not a travel guide (there is a sister project called wikitravel that is specifically aimed at creating a travel guide). I think that it is entirely appropriate for the article on Bakewell to have a section on tourism as this is a major part of the local economy. However I see a difference between writing about tourism in Bakewell and trying to attract tourists to Bakewell. I also felt that it was particularly outside of the jurisdiction of an encyclopedia to be highlighting a particular private golf course unless there is something particularly notable about that course (e.g. it has been used for a major competition), otherwise this appears to the reader as advertising. JeremyA (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SfN 2005[edit]

Jeremy: Indeed I attended this year! Despite being a coauthor on a few publications, I was not responsible for any of them so I was free to spend a bit more time roaming. Overall I was rather unimpressed by the science this year, to be frank. Despite this, I had an excellent time, and I enjoyed DC very much. As for the SfN article: I included the controversy because it received a lot of attention. If you'd like, I think it would be approprite to add something about the large attendence, but alas I wasn't able to get into the room to actually see his talk. Ugh. Semiconscious 09:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dub Is a Weapon[edit]

Thank you for restoring Dub Is a Weapon. Do you understand why Sixand deleted it like that? I do not. --AStanhope 03:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I was on the fence about Dub Is a Weapon vs. Dub is a Weapon. I agree with you and will Move it accordingly.

Re: Lucky 6.9 and keeping cool... The fact remains that he deleted a legitimate article created by a fairly active editor after ONE MINUTE. Furthermore, a glance at his [pre-"I'm Quitting"] Talk page indicates that dozens and dozens of editors have complained to him about precisely the same thing.

I had a similar problem with him on October 27.

Does the Wikipedia want our Admins who are on New Page Patrol to simply watch the page, hit Reload and err on the side of deletion?

ONE MINUTE...

--AStanhope 04:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Please re-delete Template:TAETDBFKTI! ^TN[edit]

I inadvertently re-created this when marking it for speedy (it had been deleted by you). Please re-delete it (I'm not an admin). Firebug 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{TAETDBFKTI! ^TN}} to find the the sure codes for this enigma please got see [[1]]

Graphs[edit]

Nice to see your graphs expanded back to cover the entire history of the constituencies. I wonder whether it would be easier for the purpose of the graphs to ignore contests where someone was elected unopposed - clearly, it's not true that 100% of the constituency voted for the candidate, and it disrupts the lines which otherwise show changes in share of the vote? And I wondered if you might like to create graphs for the former Sheffield constituencies Sheffield Ecclesall and Sheffield Park? Warofdreams talk 19:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll try to get the final results for Brightside and Ecclesall up ASAP. The only idea I've had for indicated control on the graphs is to use a pale coloured background - so for Hallam, it would mostly have a pale blue background, with pale yellow for the period since 1997 and from 1916-1918. Do you think this would be easy to create and clear? Warofdreams talk 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it. Do you think it's obvious what the colours refer to? Do you think the yellow shows clearly enough against the pale yellow background (could perhaps try a paler yellow background or a more orangey yellow line)? And do you think the lines should join across the uncontested elections, or do you think this would confusingly suggest that no election had taken place? Great work, Warofdreams talk 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use a PC - it's perfectly possible to distinguish between the two, just not as clear as the pale blue background/blue line - so if it'll cause difficulties, the current colours are fine. Dots or a dashed line sound like a good plan. Warofdreams talk 01:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attercliffe looks very good to me. I think the salmon pink is inevitable in a pale red - it's better than the colour used in the list of UK by-elections. So you're all set now to create graphs for any constituency? If you want a real challenge, you might like to look at Belfast West! Warofdreams talk 02:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Ecclesall and Central results[edit]

  • Thanks for the note. I'll go and check the results for Central. The two 1910 elections in Ecclesall had almost the same result - the number of votes and turnout changes, but the percentage shares of the vote stayed the same. Warofdreams talk 14:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield COA[edit]

Hi Jeremy. I downloaded the arms from here. I think this version is the one included in the Royal College of Arms books as it looks strikingly similar to images produced by artists there. I'm not sure what the council's rights on it are, I guess I just uploaded it to Wikipedia under the {{coatofarms}} template, but feel free to have it deleted if it's in violation of anything. Ta Craigy (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems...[edit]

THANK YOU, for the warning in the Okage:Shadow King pics...im still new in winkipedia. So what kind of copyright should i choose then? i placed magazine copyright for now, is that ok? are the pics gonna be deleted? hoping for you to help me...kobun (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

thank you for the help, just talk back if i did something wrong again...kobun (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LENNON[edit]

I wonder if you would like to explain which bit of my Lennon entry is 'nonsense'?

12/12/05 Nick Garrett


Date formats[edit]

I know, but if no preferences are set or if the user is not logged in (which is the case for most people using Wikipedia as a reference), the date format used in the source code is displayed unchanged. SpNeo 17:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield[edit]

I think this probably ready for a Featured Article nomination. Just thought i'd ask you if your wanting to make any improvements have any comments before we put it in for one. Thanks. josh (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the reference to George Orwell should be to his diary in 1936[2]. Not certain about his findings though. We need to get hold of a contour map from somewhere. josh (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its looking good. I've removed the climate section as it only said that Sheffield was the same as the rest of the UK (its covered in the sub page anyway). Bit worried about the size (although the refs alone are 5K) josh (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's some pollution stuff in the geography article (with refs). Another possible reference is nomisweb. I seem to remember seeing that Sheffield has below average scores on the deprevation front despite Sheffield Hallam being one of the highest scoring constiuencies in the country. Perhaps that dicotomy could be put in. The lack of historic buildings could be backed up by the lack of listed buildings. Liverpool has 23 Grade I and 85 Grade II* buildings in comparison. We also probably have one of the most controvestral listed buildings in the country.
I'm not sure about getting rid of external links. There not doing any harm at the bottom of the page. We could perhaps do with moving the peddle pushers one to the transport page. josh (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added links[edit]

Hi,

My apologies. I did look at the welcome page to determine whether I should post my link under Time-lapse photography. It is not very clear on the welcome page what the prohibitions are. I saw other postings there that were blatently commercial so I thought my link was in line with those. I see that the other blatent commercial links are still there and mine is gone. No problem. I will steer VERY clear of wikipedia in the future.

Again, my apologies... I should have spent LOTS more time trying to figure out what your ground rules are. Even after receiving your message, it took me quite a bit of time to determine what the problem was...

Thanks,

Howard


Rosenthal[edit]

Hey man, I don't know, I think I'll probably go ahead with the afd as the subject of the article is ambiguous (see afd page). If you want to come along and suggest Redirect that would be cool :) - FrancisTyers 23:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience[edit]

Jeremy: I'm trying to revive the temporarily defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience. Because of your past edits on neuroscience related articles in the past, I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irn Edit[edit]

I, Chooserr, hereby bestow upon you, JeremyA, the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your reverting of my postponed "Wow, I really can edit" edit. :D

Sheffield[edit]

Happy Christmas, and great work on the Sheffield article. I have limited internet access until the new year but if it's still on FAC then I'll be happy to help wherever I can. Warofdreams talk 22:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

Thanks for reminding me to do an infobox. It's created under Template:UKWard. So far i've only set up Birley to use it. Can you think of anything i've missed off it before I apply it to the rest of the wards. josh (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about that. I've changed it to one field now (using <br/> to seperate the councilors). I've also added Shown within {{{district}}} under the map. josh (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UKWards template[edit]

Damn my spelling. The other possiblity with the councillors is to put a left margin but it looks better now than tucked up to the left. Got the templates on all the wards now. josh (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woo Hoo[edit]

Wouldn't have happened without your edits especially in the last few days. Now I must go and get drunk. Happy New Year. josh (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to say thanks for your useful comments on the Sheffield article. Although I haven't lived in the city for over ten years I still have family there and have a great affection for the place. As such, I have a tendancy to see it through rose-tinted glasses, and your reminder to try to include negative points in the article was very helpful. I will continue trying to improve the article--including writing more on the negative aspects of the city. Thanks again, JeremyA 17:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. Congratulations on your work on the article, and on your polite discussion at the FAC nomination. JoaoRicardotalk 05:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music from Sheffield[edit]

Abbeydale Works picture[edit]

No problem - feel free to upload it to the Commons. I'll see if I have any other suitable pictures. Warofdreams talk 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading the pictures. I agree the lightened picture you have created is an improvement; if you'd like to replace the Wikipedia version, feel free. Warofdreams talk 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf melmac 10:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk(talk) 11:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walkley[edit]

It's alright, I've made it an internal link! I was doing something silly and not getting the comma to come up right, it's ok now. Saccerzd 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the disambiguation link that I put on the 'Walkley' page which you deleted. I've got rid of the external link to netherthorpe.org but kept the link to the Wikipedia page 'Staveley, Derbyshire'. However, because of the comma, I didn't know how to do this as an internal link, so I've done it as an external link. If it's wrong or not allowed, please change it. Thanks. Saccerzd 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Sheffield[edit]

Jeremy, no panic on Titanic – its water enough for all! I looked back in my photo album and it’s me who was wrong. The pictures are not from Sheffield but from Chesterfield. Regards from--80.199.140.173 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reaons why you reverted the Sheffield article ? Captain scarlet 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The travel part of the Sheffield article is broken up into two sections, one dealing with travel beyond the boundaries of Sheffield and one dealing with travel within the boundaries of Sheffield. You renamed the second of these sections and then added details to it that are already present in the first section. As such, I felt that you had broken the structure of that part of the article, and added unnecessary duplication of information.
The travel section of the article was the most criticised part of the article when it was a Featured Article Candidate and rewriting it with the current structure was one of the factors that eventually persuaded many editors to agree that the article was good enough to be a featured article. For that reason I think that any major change to the structure of that section should be discussed on the articles talk page first. JeremyA 14:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearring this issue with me. Captain scarlet 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria[edit]

Nigeriamajor wants an edit war regarding his website. I've restored status quo (with his links unfortunately), so we need to gain consensus before kicking his links out. I trust you understand. --Perfecto 02:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Andor link[edit]

Re: Andor commercial link

SSN21 Hello JeremyA, I saw your comment and complaint about me adding unauthorised links. I did not add any link to Andor to articles. I have one on my user page but I never included it in the EMCCD article or any other entry site. The only modifiction I did was my linking to "impact ionisation". I am aware of the official policy and never tried to add commercial links. It must be is some misunderstanding that I am blamed for something I did not do. I am not entirely sure why I was notified about this violation since, it is not my IP, as far as I know. It's true, I work for Andor but the whole issue is not my doing. I also posted this on the talk page of user 62.172.106.114 who apparently did it. Best regards.

Deletion of edits (and the flaws of E-Mail....)[edit]

2 Feb 06

Dear Jeremy, I am intrigued to know how a link to an article on Emlet Moor transmitter can be considered insufficiently relevant when it is from an article on Emley Moor. Even more surprising how can the only link from a piece on Diplexers (to another article on Diplexers) be thought of as unusable ? Most bizarre of all, how can a link to a topographical map of Sheffield be considered out of place in an article on the geography of Sheffield....... If the criteria for the inclusion of any alterations is so strict and arbitrary I would suggest the whole policy of allowing (in fact actually encouraging) such editing is fundamentally flawed. I must confess to some upset that the two hours or so I spent working out which links/anchors to use (and how to set them up) was a complete waste of my time. Worse still no one bothered to contact me to advise me that such deletions would be occuring and why. I accept that you did not have my E-Mail address but you did have my phone number and I suspect it could just be a local call... Rather ironically (in view of the fact I run two or three websites....) this is one of the reasons why I don`t actually like the internet/information technology, no one wants to actually talk to any one any more..... I`d far rather just phone you up and discuss it. Talking is a far more efficient method of communication for a problem such as this, in fact for most situations.......

Yours Justin Smith

Do you get in contact with me ?[edit]

3 Feb 06

Dear Jeremy, You`ll have to excuse me, but I don`t know "the form" about how you get in touch with me over my disagreement(s) with your deletions. Do you E-mail me or can I expect a phone call (however unlikely that is these days......) or do you publish your response and if so where would I find this ? My E-Mail address is atvsheff@hillsboro.wanadoo.co.uk Yours Justin Smith

70.108.253.23 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) JeremyA -- Why do you say that there's to be no external link to the 360 degree panoramic view of the Imaging Memorial at Strawberry Fields in NYC's Central Park on John Lennon's Wiki page? The author (photographer) of the picture even invites viewers to email the address of the picture to their friends. Thanks, Michael Hoshall 70.108.253.23 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JeremyA/Archive04&oldid=1146424206"