User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 13

DYK for Tyfrydog

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Grid refs

I did not like having to display grid refs without spaces. At long last I have got round to asking someone and doing this very simple edit. The php that it calls was already prepared to receive spaces. That means you could do this edit to other articles that call oscoor (which is now a redirect). But certainly, I suggest using {{gbmappingsmall}} in any future case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now gone wild and changed the template so that you now do this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Leslie Hunter GAN

Hi,

Many thanks for your review. I have made some changes and posted a response to your comments. Let me know what you think.--Korruski^Talk 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review, and thanks for the pass!--Korruski^Talk 23:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

You're welcome. And thanks for protect the page. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

please

dont call me racist ok, i am not racist i just think that australia eserves some of tthe spotligT instead of those egpytains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.191.60 (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for review

Many thanks for your helpful review of Adlington Hall, which has led to some good improvements. I guess that, because it is privately owned, there may be some reluctance to allow internal photography as you say. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Ex-Tindal? Surely it's Tindal til you die or cease to care. Which, for me, was long before I left the place... DBD 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Iris Cummings GA Review

Hi, thanks for the review! I've updated the article a bit to attempt and address your concerns. Please let me know if there is anything else to be done! Canadian Paul 05:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 15:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

JCBC

Thanks for your help with the JCBC / bumps / Rowing pages. I was hoping to get the video onto those other pages eventually, and you've done it for me! Cheers. Incidentally I've been chatting to the Jesus Old Member's Office about setting up an archive there, if you're interested. Nothing public yet but hopefully something within the next few months. And I'd love to help out with the Oxford pages etc - if I can find the time! Cheers Dl40482 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Portal DYK max 100

Hi, Ages ago you tweaked some code to allow Portal:Somerset to show 100 DYKs instead of 75. Is there any reason for these numerical limits? WP:SOMERSET now has 96, with a couple more in process so will soon be pushing the 100 limit. Could you do 100-125 or an unlimited version of Template:Numbered subpages?— Rod ^talk 08:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at groups of 5 or 6 with a pic but couldn't find an automated process for rotating these?— Rod ^talk 12:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axe dabbed. I will cogitate on {{Random portal component with nominate}} & probably change it this evening (a couple of real work deadlines to meet first). Thanks for the guidance.— Rod ^talk 12:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it while the nomination for featured status is running - it would be unfair to those who have commented to make a change in structure after they have supported.— Rod ^talk 13:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

RGS Guildford

Hello, Bencherlite. You have new messages at Talk:Royal Grammar School, Guildford.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've got a couple of questions arising from you comments if you could have a look. Thank you TheAuthor22 (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:St Fflewin's Church, Llanfflewin/GA1

I have completed the initial review. Thank you for your patience! The article should be able to be promoted to GA in this review but I have identified some issues under criterion 1 that require your attention or explanation. Please visit the review page for the full details. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I realise you've already spotted my changes, but to be clear, my re-review is now complete, and the only outstanding issues are "Chuch in Wales" (which I am prepared to make the necessary changes myself, if you like) and "it is said". - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your changes have vastly improved the article and answered my concerns. I have accordingly promoted the article to GA status. Thank you for your patience and cooperation, and congratulations on your hard work! - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My Userpage

Hi there! I'd like to ask how do put an indefinite protection for my user page, since a threat still exists regarding vandalism of my userpage. Daxdigital (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Indented line Thanks for the info! Gladly appreciate your help and keep up the good work! Daxdigital (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Deiniol's Church, Llanddaniel Fab

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A total No-No!

I BEG you not to state that any disused church is likely to contain an eighteenth century silver cup. To continue to advertise the treasurs found in Britain's disused churches is foolishness in the extreme! Moreover, although you may not realise it, church organs provide pretty pickings and ought not be advertised either. There is a serious racket in the trade of pipes and parts from church organs. Any thief who starts following this series of articles on disused churches will have an absolute holiday! You need to be a great deal more responsible. No-one who writes about art/treasures can afford to be naive about art theft. While the loss of a Leonardo, a Munch or a Vermeer is occassional and sensational headline material, the trade in smaller treasures stolen from unguarded churches and minor museum goes on ceaselessly. Please delete this after you have read it, and exercise more care. Amandajm (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the silver cup is still in the church or not. The fact that it might be, is an encouragement to look for it. As for the organ, this is not a question of whether the publication is reliable or not. It is a question of whether it is reasonable to put the fact into such a public forum, once you are aware that there is a major worldwide racket. The spotted metal pipes and leads tubing are easy enough for any scrap metal dealer to remove without it being noticed. Knowing what I know, and who I know, I consider it absolute stupidity to persist in this, now that you've been asked not to. Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, anyone can break in anywhere at any time. However, disused buildings are just a shade more vulnerable than those which are in use and/or have security cameras. And No, I cannot retract that statement that advertising unprotected valuables is both stupid and irresponsible. Please email me at [removed] Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Caffo

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Caffo's Church, Llangaffo

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Twrog's Church, Bodwrog

Orlady (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Fooians

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom. Moonraker2 (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bribery Act

Given your superior westlaw access, would you mind slinging me over whatever you can find in relation to the Bribery Act 2010? I'll slip you a few quid in exchange :P. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough! Enjoy your time off/whatnot, I guess :). Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Yes please. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Ffinan's Church, Llanffinan ‎

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted two portals

I promoted two portals:

1. Portal:Law of England and Wales
2. Portal:Somerset

I did all of the numerous "promotion" steps, except for updating Portal:Featured content/Portals, which is the only annoying part. :P Would be most appreciative if you could take care of that? Thanks! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and congratulations on yours as well.— Rod ^talk 08:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Steeplechase award

Honoring Bencherlite as the recipient of the Wikipedia steeplechase award for featured content contributions across 5 of the site's 6 featured content types. A spectacular and unparalleled ability to jump through hoops. An excellent display of effort! With warm respect, SMasters (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In honor of your spectacular ability to jump through Wikipedia's hoops as a content contributor, I hereby award you the Wikipedia steeplechase award. Nice theme with the Bodder and Jaggers. You're a champ! – SMasters (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...

So apparently I asked you a month and a half ago to tell me your thoughts on Portal:Cape Cod and the Islands. You also told me to bug you in a few days if you didn't get around to it and I just remembered to bug you. My question is, would you be willing to do this again? I mean there obviously is no rush but I guess soon is better than a month and a half from now. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigeberht of East Anglia

Hi, S o EA is ready when you are.--Amitchell125 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Bencherlite. Look at Rædwald of East Anglia and tell me I'm wise to try and make it a good article as well!--Amitchell125 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Peirio's Church, Rhosbeirio

The article St Peirio's Church, Rhosbeirio you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Peirio's Church, Rhosbeirio for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Ceidio's Church, Rhodogeidio

The article St Ceidio's Church, Rhodogeidio you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Ceidio's Church, Rhodogeidio for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:St Mary's Church, Bodewryd/GA1

I have completed my initial review of this article, plus examined your first round of changes. The only remaining matter prior to promotion to GA is a further consideration of the "it is said" phrasing. I have proposed two solutions; upon either (a) adopting one of them, (b) adopting a suitable alternative, or (c) providing a reasonable explanation why neither are an improvement, I will promote the article. Congratulation on more good work on Anglesey churches! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am happy with the current version, and have accordingly listed the article as a Good Article. Congratulations! - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

FP

Thanks for that, and sorry: I usually do check, but promotions are so rare that we miss it sometimes and rely on people like you to leave a note. Will include in next week's. Tony (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Featured_list_proposal

Get over there. I've lit the blue touch paper, now time to evacuate to watch the fireworks... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Given your emphatic support there, I suspect you may have also have a mild interest in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Specific proposal #2 (a.k.a. "walk before run"). —WFC— 10:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Rapid response

Thanks for this. I somehow managed to miss that it had been dealt with. I promise I didn't spend 10 minutes typing out the note! Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ACCESS and lists

Dude, once we get the go-ahead, I'll do another review of your "list", to pick up anything new. In the meantime, User:RexxS has added a bunch of ACCESS stuff to my handy guide. Might be worth a perusal...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Allied Military Currency contains false data (and was) supported by a non-existant reference. I agree the concept is not a hoax. In fact, I never suggested the concept is a hoax ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't use {{db-hoax}} then. That's for "pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes", which this was not. A new editor doesn't deserve to be treated like this. Nor was it, as you said, a "fictional article". It needs references, and (assuming good faith) the original author didn't know how to do it properly, but it's not fiction, is it? Bencherlite^Talk 13:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Well, don't use {{db-hoax}} then. That's for "pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes", which this was not." - OK, so what do you do with an article that contains false data?

"A new editor doesn't deserve to be treated like this." - So how do you treat an editor who edits three articles with vandalism, and creates a new article that contains false statements?

"A new editor" - What makes you think he's a new editor?

"Nor was it, as you said, a "fictional article"." OK, that was sloppy - but there's a severe limit on how much you can put in the edit comment. The quoted source was fictional, and some of the content is fictional, or failing that, false.

"It needs references, and (assuming good faith) the original author didn't know how to do it properly, but it's not fiction, is it?" a) Parts of it are/were. b) Why should I assume good faith when I had just reverted similar false edits of a similar style in three articles, the only other articles this username had edited?

And talking about WP:AGF, don't you think that you should AGF that a regular knows what they're doing, even if they make minor mistakes around the edges when they are doing it? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Reply here please Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you do with an article that contains false data? Well, as you haven't said what's false in the article, I can't say whether or not I agree with the premise of your question, but false data should be challenged, removed or rewritten. Using a speedy deletion tag (particularly an incorrectly chosen one) to nuke the article from orbit is not the way to do it. There's always AFD, of course. This website looks at first blush to substantiate some of the main points of the article, and I suspect that there's more out there, so I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.

So how do you treat an editor who edits three articles with vandalism, and creates a new article that contains false statements? Well, we disagree again. I wouldn't say that this is vandalism, as opposed to a misguided attempt to confirm the truth of a sentence; this appears to be a misunderstanding of the situation described at General of the Armies, rather than vandalism; and adding YouTube links to Regis High School (New York City) is hardly crime of the century, and isn't vandalism either. Please re-read WP:VANDALISM: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing." So how would I deal with the editor? Point out the errors, politely I hope, and emphasise the need for proper references.

The tone and modus operandi is not dis-similar from that of a well known sock who repeatedly creates "new users". Fine, then go to WP:SPI.

Your inappropriate characterisation of the edits as vandalism has led you to throw AGF out of the window. You may want to re-read WP:BITE and also to remember that speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions. This clearly was not uncontroversial. There's no failure to assume good faith on my part - I think that you were wrong in what you did, but for the right reasons of trying to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I find your reply very strange and very confusing. You seem to have cherry-picked certain questions and ignored some of the more important ones, and ignored some of the more important and more obvious facts. I disagree with at least half of what you have said, particularly There's no failure to assume good faith on my part. However, as I'm about to go to bed, I will close with what I think is an appropriate statement I heard recently: "I think that you were wrong in what you did, but for the right reasons of trying to protect the integrity of Wikipedia." Cheerio, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The questions I didn't answer (because I thought the answers were obvious from my other comments) were (a) What makes you think he's a new editor?, to which the answer is that the account registered today, so if you think otherwise and think that this is not the first account operated by this editor the burden is on you to show it. (b) Why should I assume good faith when I had just reverted similar false edits of a similar style in three articles, the only other articles this username had edited? Because the previous edits weren't vandalism and so shouldn't have exhausted your supply of good faith. I'm not sure why the "more important and more obvious facts" are that I'm supposedly ignoring. You repeat and repeat that parts of the article are fiction, but haven't actually said which bits of why, which makes it hard for me to agree or disagree. Nothing jumps out at me from the article as obviously unlikely, I must say. I note in the meantime that a WP:MILHIST editor has found an entire book on the topic, which might be useful to somebody. Sleep tight! Bencherlite^Talk 15:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(via the milhist comment) Looking at the article, I suspect the "fictional" quoted source is, in fact, just a well-meaning attempt by the author to cite personal knowledge. Which is not the way we handle articles, of course, but it's hard to treat it as malicious! I'll try to add a bit more citation. Shimgray | talk | 00:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming me

The title says it all :) Zakhalesh (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Anglesey churches

I'm interested in your articles, and am about to review a few of your GANs. It looks like you've done some useful work there. I note that you have created a navigation box for Anglesey churches, though at the moment there are a lot of red links. The intention of a nav box is to guide readers to existing articles, so the guidance on Wikipedia:Navigation templates is not to have red links unless you are just about to write the articles, and even then, it is considered better to write the article first, and then add it to the nav box. It is however, acceptable to have red links in a list article. A List of churches in Anglesey might be useful, and even better an article on Anglesey churches which gives an overview, and then a brief description of each, linking to the main articles. Food for thought... Anyway, well done on creating the articles, and I look forward to reviewing them. SilkTork *^YES! 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FLC/GEAfBFLF/a1

Could you revisit, please?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Capel Lligwy

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Caian's Church, Tregaian

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

St Twrog's Church, Bodwrog

An enjoyable and informative read. Good pulling together of the available information. You have probably got more about that little church than anyone else has. Well done. I have been a bit picky with the comments, but you'll see that the points are very minor and open to discussion. I don't see the article being failed. I have put it on hold until March 3rd when I come back from France, though if it's done before the 25th of this month, then give me a ping. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This user helped promote St Twrog's Church, Bodwrog to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 15:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Anglesey or Isle of Anglesey

I looked at the Isle of Anglesey and saw that the article was written as Isle of Anglesey, while it was titled Anglesey, which was a recent page move. I checked sources which indicated that Isle of Anglesey was the official name, and one used for books and articles on the place, so moved it back. But I note that you use Anglesey exclusively. What are your thoughts on the naming issue? Should it be opened up for a wider discussion? I am always for the usage which is most common, but a search for Anglesey on Google and GoogleBooks threw up mixed results which were unhelpful. Is it one of those either/or situations, and doesn't really matter, or does usage come down mostly on one or the other? SilkTork *^YES! 16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that you had moved the page back... It's one of those slightly unusual situations where everyone is probably right, so I try to stay out of it and express no opinion! As an outsider, my thoughts are these. As a geographical entity, "Anglesey" refers to the main island itself strictly speaking, but is generally used as a shorthand for the group of islands or the county. My wife, when speaking in English anyway, would never say that she was from the "Isle of Anglesey"; she'd say she was from Anglesey. The county's official title is "Isle of Anglesey County Council" in English ("Cyngor Sir Ynys Mon" in Welsh, "ynys" meaning island), yet the county's territory includes the islands off Anglesey, which both the Welsh and English titles would suggest were not included! Someone from Holyhead, for example, isn't "from" Anglesey in one sense, because Holyhead is on Holy Island which is connected to the main island by a causeway - although it's perfectly possible to cross from Anglesey to Holy Island without noticing that you're changing islands. My source books for the church project use Anglesey in the arguably loose sense e.g. "Anglesey churches" whether the church is on Holy Island, Ynys Seiriol, Church Island... and so on. So, it's a mess and best avoided, I think! Bencherlite^Talk 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Best avoided then. I'll leave things as they are and what will happen will happen. Thanks for getting back to me. SilkTork *^YES! 16:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's such a cop-out! We need more drama! – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to create the drama, and sell tickets. I'll come along and throw peanuts. SilkTork *^YES! 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

St Tyfrydog's Church, Llandyfrydog

This user helped promote St Tyfrydog's Church, Llandyfrydog to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Dona's Church, Llanddona

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Pentraeth

On hold. Lead needs building, and there are some architectural terms that need explaining. SilkTork *^YES! 02:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This user helped promote St Mary's Church, Pentraeth to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Llanfair Mathafarn Eithaf

I have completed the GA review for this article. It passed, with no changes required. I have accordingly promoted the article to GA status. Congratulations on another Good Article! - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The United Kingdom Barnstar of National Merit
		For your extraordinarily comprehensive series of Good Articles on Welsh churches. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Bencherlite by DustFormsWords (talk) on 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Gallgo's Church, Llanallgo

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FLC/GEAfBFLF/a1

hello,

I don't really like to beg about response, but this list needs to be promoted within 2 days, exactly the time the first round of the WikiCup will end. I have only 2 points; this is not enough to go into the second round. I replaced IMDb links with movies.yahoo.com links, as it has much more reliability than IMDb. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class articles?

Hi,

Do you known about anything about "A-Class articles"? I noticed you rightly removed this on this page: Talk:Sacco_and_Vanzetti this category.

I am aware that this project has such review process. Do you know of other projects that have such process? If such class is attributed to an article, does this not mean that it can only be given for each project on each instance and not for all projects as done in FA?

What do you think? I think this needs to be investigated further. Many thanks, Mootros (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

FAC thanks

Thanks for removing that nomination, such as it was. It's nice to know folks are keeping an eye on things! --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

FLC

I thought you might be interested in having a look at this FLC. It is, I think, the editor's first attempt, and she has based her work very much on the way we have been doing lists. I have given a bit of advice on her talk page, but did not want to add anything to the nomination as my name is included in her presentation. The nomination has not as yet attracted much attention. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Copyvio"

hello,

I was trying to remove some POV context from the site and tried to make it as tiny as possible. I don't know else how to write articles, if only one website has great information about it. How can I write then? It is the official website, and this stupid copyright disturbs to write a normal article. What do you think, how I should write such articles? Or should I simple not create articles, if the sources are copyrighted? I just added all useful information, exactly how I could write an article about a channel. Regards and awaiting of your reply.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Too close for comfort?

I assume this is not you? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Bencherlite2 (talk · contribs) isn't me so I've reported the account to WP:UAA. Well spotted! Bencherlite^Talk 12:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

It was nice of you to respond my question. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to give you a quick thanks for this. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Gallgo's Church, Llanallgo

The article St Gallgo's Church, Llanallgo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Gallgo's Church, Llanallgo for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

FLC

You may be interested to know that I have nominated List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England at FLC. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your help page and article review work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed

St Deiniol's Church, Llanddaniel Fab has been reviewed and is waiting for your comments. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court case drive

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help

• Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK casetemplate based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.

• Complete that template and add it to existing cases.

• Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.

• Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking

• Create new articles for UKSC cases

• Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.

• Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Haha, I hadn't thought about that! I'll set something up as a user sub-page but I'll see about getting it annexed to the Law Wikiproject or set up as a proper task force if theres enough interest. It'll be here: User:Bob House 884/Task Force.

In the mean time check out the template: here and in action and the case databases 2009, 2010, 2011 and see if anything sticks out.

Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I've got a notice up at talk but nobody commented for a day or too so i figured the direct approach would work better. I'll certainly ask Ironholds - good call. I'll set the temp base up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/UKSC and hopefully do some more tommorow. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice one! (User:Bencherlite/Jones v Kaney). I'm working on User: Bob House 884/R v Horncastle, comments are welcome (I need to source it and some stuff needs cutting back as OR). Bob House 884 (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)