User talk:Richard Harvey/Archive 2

Archive page 2 - Please do not edit this page
Archive: 1, 3

Links to historic counties

Thanks for your note. It looks to me like the principle of the disambiguation was good - I agree with Jza84 that historic counties should never have redirected to historic counties of England, as Wales and Scotland (and to a lesser extent, Ireland) have historic counties. In most instances it seems to have been handled well, but as historic counties of England exists, some links which should really have gone to it are instead now pointing to counties of the United Kingdom. It's not a disaster, it just needs someone with some time on their hands to go through, probably with AWB, and fix these. Have you tried asking User:MRSC about it? Warofdreams talk 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of Musa Qala

It's a very crude solution indeed, but it seems to be the only option to stop edit-warring on recent controversial conflicts. Eventually, I expect the numbers will be converted to a normal range of estimates; but doing so while the topic is so politically controversial isn't going to stick, in my experience. Kirill 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. I've nominated Musa Qala for featured articles: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Musa Qala. There's still some changes being made at the margins, but it's a very good page, all round. Feel free to comment. If you support, do so "as contributor" so people know you've invested time. Marskell (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Status from (06:49, 22 January 2008)

Yes, I saw. Great! Thanks for the help. This article was a change of pace for me. I may try other small engagements at some point and I'll let you know. Marskell (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually picked Musa Qala because it was fast moving and based on on-line newspaper articles. I live in the Middle East, with no good library around, and thus can't really get into military history as much as I'd like to, for lack of books. Thus Battle of Magdala isn't something I could seriously add material to. But when you're ready for a copyedit, let me know.

Are you a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, BTW? That's where you'd want to go. It's a giant project—the most successful Wikipedia has. Marskell (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you do some fascinating image work. I had meant to ask with Musa Qala: do you actually receive pics from units in the field, or do you get them public domain somewhere from the government? Marskell (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 TB! Goodness, that's a hell of a collection. Great work.

My next Afghan target, incidentally, is Operation Medusa, which I'll hopefully get to next month. You can throw it on your watchlist. It was primarily Canadian fighting, which is why I want to do it, but there was that British helicopter crash. Perhaps you have media related to it. Marskell (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teamdeck

It looks to me like a valid subject for an article, and I wouldn't exactly describe it as an advert - it does look like a good faith attempt. However, it doesn't make any claim of notability, it doesn't have any references, and the full list of services - with frequencies - is overkill. Wikipedia is not a timetable! I'd suggest either taking it to WP:AFD or prodding it - perhaps someone might be inclined to improve it; if not, there's no harm in waiting for someone to write a decent stub on it in the future. Warofdreams talk 20:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left User:Faz2105 a polite message about timetables. Warofdreams talk 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mig Greengard

Hi,

I would advise you to save the statement somewhere, if possible. There is, as yet, no need for it; but, there may be shortly. The second AfD I closed as out-of-order, given that the deletion review is not yet closed. Once the deletion review is closed, someone may wish to start a new AfD discussion, at which time your comments may be appropriately placed. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I am delighted to award you this Barnstar for your conscientious development of articles on Huddersfield and neighbouring districts. BlueValour (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your message. User:R. fiend does seem to dislike {{Intro-tooshort}}, and the edit summaries are inappropriate. However, I wouldn't call it vandalism, as the user does seem to have a coherent argument as to why it might be wise to remove the template from the articles. There are quite a few comments at User talk:R. fiend about removing this template, so these removals clearly aren't uncontroversial, and the best solution seems discussion. I'd suggest first pointing the user in the direction of some appropriate places to discuss use of the template (probably Template talk:Intro-tooshort if they want to discuss its usage, for example, adding guidelines to limit its use, or suggesting it as a talk page template rather than an article one; and WP:TFD if they think it should just go - although this is unlikely to be successful, as I see the template has been nominated before but kept per WP:SNOW). Warofdreams talk 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golcar

Thanks for the info Richard. It was my first visit to 'Golcar' so I appologise for bending the rules! The intention was honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExScout (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Scotland

Richard. Got your message, thanks. (Interesting reading on the 'other' talk page - quite a 'rap sheet') Best regards Rab-k (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Today magazine

Hi Richard, I am a freelance journalist on the editorial team at Yorkshire Today magazine and I am writing a feature on Golcar for the May issue of the magazine. I would like some photographs to go with my feature and I was wondering if I could possibly use the ones you have? Also, I wondered if you had any more? I would be grateful for any help you could give me as my deadline is in the next few days. Thanks, Emma Shipley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipley Emma (talk • contribs) 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emma! I am quite happy for you to use the photographs, as requested. Please attribute any of my images used. I have a few additional ones of the Golcar area that were taken from the same location on Pike Law Road and show the 180° panorama from left to right. They are of a far greater resolution than the ones on the article and I am happy to supply those original images if your art dept prefer them. I do have many others though of the Huddersfield area. Clicking on my user page tab, at the top, will show a link to my photo gallery in Wikipedia, where some can be seen. If there is sufficient time before your copy deadline and you need a specific photo done for the article then I will try to do one for you. If you are logged in when viewing this page you will see a link in the toolbox, to the left of this page, allowing you to e-mail me. That will be easier for sorting things out. Many thanks for your request, it is appreciated. :o) Richard Harvey (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

195.195.14.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi Richard. I apologise for the problems that this IP address has been causing. Unfortunately it is the external IP address that is shared by our staff and students when accessing the Internet within college. I've been keeping an eye on the situation, and have been disabling the web access of students that I have found vandalising Wikipedia and notifying the other members of the IT staff about this problem. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. I've replied to your post on my talk page. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Theatre (Halifax)

I added some references to Victoria Theatre (Halifax) to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holmfirth

Hi Richard. I work for a company called Resources for Chaneg and we are interested in using one of your images on a report we are producing for the Yorkshire Rural Community Council. It is the image of View of Holmfirth from Cliffs above Cliff Road. Would this be okay? Thanks Ruth

Hi Ruth! I am quite happy for you to use the photograph, as requested. Please attribute the image to myself, as per the prior request from Yorkshire Today magazine. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re User:138.253.83.239 reported to WP:AIV

Hi, just a message to let you know why the above has not (yet) been blocked. When an ip belongs to an educational institution it is very likely that the vandalism is coming from one or very few individuals. Unless the vandalism is happening as it is being reported most admins are reluctant to block because the next (potential) contributor may not be a vandal. The above ip (University of Liverpool) were editing much earlier in the day, and has stopped. If they start again then they should be blocked, but not until. I hope this clarifies the (in)action (not)taken. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Holme Valley photo

I've just added your picture of the Upper Holme Valley to the Yorkshire portal. It's a brilliant picture but I wondered if you could identify the settlements in it so that I can improve the caption. Thanks. --Kaly99 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the comment on my photo:- Upper Holme Valley, its most kind of you. With regard to 'settlements':- The image was taken from a hill called 'Mount' overlooking Jackson Bridge. From the bottom of the photo, looking downhill, you first have a small hamlet called 'Butterley' to the left of centre. Then up and to the left is Totties with 'Greenhill Bank Road' leading off right and down into New Mill, which then curves down and round the valley then goes uphill to 'Sude Hill.' Moving forward along the valley from New Mill, going forward and left above Greenhill Bank Road, is Lydgate which then evolves into Wooldale before dissapearing over the hill and down into Holmfirth. From New Mill to the right, the valley moves, unseen, down through Brockholes and Honley to Berry Brow and into Huddersfield. Above the hillside to the extreme right of the image you can just see the top of Castle Hill sticking up. The hills moving off into the distance beyond Lydgate are above Honley and Crosland Moor, which lead over into Meltham and the Colne Valley. The white building to the centre of the image is the Huddersfield Royal Infirmary located in Marsh. Beyond that is Halifax and off to the right is Bradford. This image Holme Valley shows the area 'over the hill' down the Valley from Meltham to Huddersfield. I've also put a few more local 'Landscapes' on Wikipedia here. HTH :o) Richard Harvey (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the information! I've expanded the caption to reflect it. I'd already seen some of your other panoramas, the Castle Hill 2003-11-12 14-04-25 P1210664 is also included on the portal and it was one of the pictures that inspired me to add the panorama section to the portal.--Kaly99 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer!

Yep - that one. Just to say that it is getting soem close attention. I won't bore you with the hoops & loops but - as you will see from the report page - there are a number of domains involved & quite a bit of cross wiki link placement. I think because they were merely "irritating" rather than "blatant" and it was across geographically diverse pages it took a while to connect it all up. If I can help let me know - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise

I am new to Wikipedia and want to get involved. I appreciate your feedback as it is helping me learn. My biggest 'headache' is trying to understand what is a reference, or a link, or Spam, but I think I am getting there. There are no-misintentions, just mis-understandings. IK have started with something I know a lot about, and gain experience without offending others and getting it wrong other's sites. But I need your help. I recently added a section abour Mirfield Show which was a factual account with published references, but you chose to remove it because it was a future event. For future reference, why is this not allowed when every 'yet to be released' films has a wiki-site, and events such as the Glastobury festival have a full line up lists for an event later this year ? Please advise. For info, I live in Mirfield, but I am not responsible for the official web-site. rjhartley (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the message. I had spotted the article being created and followed it through to see it was by a new editor. Quite often in article of the type you created it is done to promote an event as a form of advertising for the event and includes inappropriate external links to business or websites that themselves contain adverts for businesses or services. Having done the initial copy-edit to format the page and bring it into a wikipedia style. I again followed further changes and amended them where required. To be honest with the section I removed I found that it read like a local media promotional article and included links fresh links, via a different source, I previously removed to commercial businesses EG Springers and the Martial arts club and I felt that there may be a conflict of interest and possibly an element of Spam arising. I had to think about the deletion before doing so and didn't remove it lightly. You will see that where possible in my previous copy-editing I had reformatted and included new links to some others such as the Roman legion. I have over the years become a bit strict about external sites ( NB: I dislike advertising :0) ). I suppose I was a bit harsh as if it had been worded a little different and had not included the links I would have left it to see how it developed.I was logging in to take another look at the wording to revamp it when I found your message for advice. I'm glad to have got it as it shows your are sincere in the article and its something I actually wish to see develop. Wikipedia is really a great amount of co-operation and consensus - thats what makes it work. If anyone disagrees about something then they can ask for a second opinion, as you have. I've been in the same boat myself. With regard to your question about Future events and why some articles seem to allow it. Well its a bit of a grey area and just because its happening on one article does not mean its permitted on another, at some point consensus will do what it has in the past and either remove the details or change the standards. To me unless something has occurred its not encyclopaedic and so I'm picky about the wording on articles, which must always have a Neutral point of view. As for what is 'spam' well thats defined in the link above. For a reference you need to think of it as a source backing up a statement made in the article. Just putting a link to a website is not enough, the link needs to be to a specific statement or report relating to the wording it is attached to. A link to a newspaper is just a link, but a link to the newspaper story about an event is a reference. the various newspaper report I placed about the 2003 show are an example of how to do and format one. To get an insight into what can and what should certainly not be included take a look at:- External links and what Wikipedia is not. I hope that provides some of the advice you require, I will now go to the article and re-instate the section but slightly reworded and without the links. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the swift reply, and many thanks for taking the time to amend the section - it does help new people like myself learn what is acceptable and what is not. I have learned what I have so far from reading other articles from other sites, and from people like yourself. Unfortunately your amended section was subsequently removed, making me even more confused. I have 'undone' the removal, but I am sure they will revert it.rjhartley (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.248.187 (talk) [reply]

Thanks for the support. I am using this area as a bit of a 'pet project' so I can learn without offending too many other people on other people's sites. I have contacted Herby to apologise again for my intial reaction (I hope he is the forgiving kind) - I did regret it as soon as I 'saved' it. Also, I appreciate being kept on your watchlist as it is comforting knowing someone will pick up any (innocent) mistakes. Thanks again. rjhartley (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pak

Hi mate, Just wanted to know who gave you the authority to fix & mend other peoples article on here? Can you not consult the person before making the changes? Reply soon. Thanks

Hi Rajput m16, I have replied on your talk page. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Hi Richard, Sorry about before i think i was alittle harsh in my last message to you! Also because I havent been on here long im not exacttly sure how things are done properly, I need help n tips would you be knid enough to help me? I dont want to break any rules on here and want to contribute as much as possible. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rajput! No offense was taken by your message I understood you are a new editor and perhaps a little frustrated at the sudden changes by another editor. As you can see I was just trying to get the article into a semblance of normality and make it more readable by removing duplicated links of the same word, which leaves pages rather messy. You will also note I have disambiguated a lot of the words you linked to specific articles. I understand the difference and meaning of words like Potowari and Pothohar, though through time and editing by many other editors, as wikipedia is condensed and cleaned up, the words now both point to the 'Pothohar Plateau'. Similarly 'Kashmir Valley', as per a recent edit which needs changing, should be linked to 'Kashmir'. One of the best ways to check your edits and save so many minor changes would be to press the 'Preview' button and then hover your mouse cursor over the Blue link shown. That will then either show the only link available or a list of articles that you can select from, or check for further specific links, before pressing the 'Save page' button. At the same time that will allow you to see any changes you make to a page layout before they are made and then changed again. You may have noticed that some links I thought would be okay, and left alone, have now been removed by MER-C, from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam as unsuitable for inclusion in the article, see:- Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming. I really don't like to see articles dissappear altogether, but you will note on the AAP TV article I have flagged it for WP:notability so it can be review by a third party. Unfortunately your edits have deleted what was a notable piece of information - the banning of the original channel in Pakistan - and having now 'moved' the article to one with a new name, of a proposed future event, it is unfortunately no longer encyclopaedic (NB: The channel website shown in the info box is to the channel that one of your previous edit summaries stated no longer existed). Please though do review your uploaded images as I requested, If I can tell that some of them are copied from elsewhere, and provide a hyperlink to the original image, no doubt other editors can too. Sorting them out now will prevent problems that could crop up in the future. (NB: I myself have recently requested two of my old Aerial photo images be deleted, as having first been advised they were PD, then modifying them and converting them to High definition gif images, I recently found out they were actually copyrighted). I am always happy to help, so please ask if your unsure of something. :0) Richard Harvey (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard,

I took a look at this but I too struggled working out if this was an appropriate change made to the article. It's not an area I'm particularly clued-up about. I think you've got the issue where it needs to be though, at least for now. Feel free to give me a nudge if you want me to re-visit this issue. Good to hear from you, --Jza84 | Talk 19:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi richard,

Just thout id let you know about AAPTV'S website, ive put the link back because ive email them a few days ago & they got back to me today saying the website will be up and running in a matter of days. Also the channel will be launched on 8th July mid afternoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mirpur International Airport

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mirpur International Airport, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirpur International Airport. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Accounting4Taste:talk 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Hi Richard, Firstly about Mirpur Airport, ive been in touch with Mirpur Development Authority about the airport and was told the sight for the airport has been picked within the mirpur district I did ask them for more info on project launch date, cost etc but was told i have to wait until one of the senior guys are in, about 4 days time & he will give me details on the project. So what do I do in the mean?

Also can you please tell me what i need for ajk council logo? Thanks

Hi Rajput. Until any official details are released detailing the actual site, planning (layout) and financing of an airport it is not considered a future airport suitable for an article. Its quite probable that the page will be deleted. However once the project has been officially released into the Public Domain by the Government of Pakistan then the article can be recreated, though with actual verifiable references and in greater detail including mapping. The rationale you have placed on the logo image page should suffice, though only for that article a rational has to be placed on the image page for every individual article it is used in. If it is not considered as a suitable rationale then an admin will remark it for possible deletion. I had originally tagged it as per the Picasaweb albums information on your talkpage from Moonriddengirl to allow a weeks grace to give you time to get the required information for release. Unfortunately a more experienced editor in copyright has deleted them. However once Mohsin published the details on each of the images on his webpage, as advised by Moonriddengirl then I suggest you let her know the relevant image links, so she can confirm each image is okay for use. She may then be able to retrieve them from the archive history to save re-uploading them. Also please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message, then when you save the page your details will be placed at the end of the message like this:-. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIF0407

Hey thanks for editing up the Clark Nature Center page. though I notice you put a map up of PA showing Newton, instead of Newtown. Newtown is in the south eastern part of PA in Bucks County. How do I edit that image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIF0407 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry about that. :o( I have amended it and included a bit more information to the text. It just needs some decent photo's now, otherwise the article may go to the dogs :) Richard Harvey (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I have a couple of pictures that I need to upload tonight of the trails, then I'll post them there. Thanks for all the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIF0407 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I uploaded the 2 images I wanted to use in the wikimedia commons and did the image gallery button and did what I think was what I was suppose to do but the images are not coming out?

the codes are:

gallery (I removed the < > to post here )

Image:L 7db77fec49094b848928ead7bf315e60.jpg| One of the seasonal creeks that run along the property.

Image:L 3b8a13162d448dd7f9f04a1ca9efdf8c.jpg| 2 Labrador Retriever dogs sniff at a benched area at Clark Nature Center.

gallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIF0407 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah! :o) You can't put a gallery in the middle of an infobox. I've kept one in there and put the dogs in the main body image gallery. I have also downloaded the wikicommons images and enhanced (brightened) and enlarged them, then re-uploded them to wikicommons as newer versions for you. A photo's of the farmhouse and barn would not go amiss, or a wide landscape one of the park area. Plus if you have the software a map of the park showing the main tracks and creeks. Also use colons ':' to indent your messages and please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message, then when you save the page your details will be placed at the end of the message like this:- Richard Harvey (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'll give the signing a test. and ill have some pics of the farmhouse/barn and landscaping too. trail wise i dont even know if their is anything on the township site. the trails are a big loop around the property. I get some pictures this weekend though. (PIF0407 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Bus articles

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Bus articles to free up main talk page. 86.3.2.208 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire regiment

Hi, thanks for restoring the date linking on this article. there is currently no agreement on this matter and dates should not be unlinked/linked universally in articles. The article should remain in its current stae with or without date linking. Heated discussion is continuing on the MOS for this see WT:MOSDATE. I personally think that there should be date linking and that user preferences should be enhanced to fix the short comings. Keith D (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith, I was totally unaware of that discussion and, having read through it, do find it to be going around in circles. My personal preference is to not wikilink individual instances of day/month without a year being stated or years without a day and month, as I find it pointless. But I do think it a good idea to wikilink the full day, month and year as per WP:DATE and then place those within brackets, as per the List of United Kingdom disasters by death toll article. I recently delinked the complete April 12 article and straightened the layout up, as there were no years given, then later realised it probably should have been linked and went to revert my changes, but found it had already been reverted. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thomas Gun

No problem. He's taking his edit warring to WikiCommons, a place where I don't have admin rights to curtail his nonsense, unfortunately. There's a growing body of users who are sick to the teeth with this guy's ramblings and distruption, but we need a few people familliar with his history to tackle him on commons too. I'll try to monitor the situation. --Jza84 | Talk 13:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur

Hey Richard, yes we are editing at the same time lol! I was just haveing a look at the notable people list and noticed there were quite a few that shoudnt be there like small time ministers etc so ive decided to get rid of them cause obv they're not that notable. Also been doing alot of research on the city n regions history and found many really well known people who hailed from the city, ive added afew n will be adding the rest once ive sorted out the ref. oh yeah n thanks 4 cleaning up the refs, i appreciate it mate

Re: Dates

The answer is in Lightmouse's edit summary - WP:MOSNUM, specifically: "The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. This change was made on August 24, 2008."

There is a consensus to unlink dates. --Jza84 | Talk 10:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOSNUM itself, the decision to change policy (the wording in MOS is policy) was made based on this archived debate, and this more recent discussion. A script and bot was approved via normal channels for rolling out this change. I think that a minority are still opposing this is not symptomatic that there is no consensus, but rather that they need to secure a consensus to change the policy back.

I'm indifferent to the whole thing, but (this is purely personal perspective) it has always struck me as odd that people would want to navigate from major topics into specific dates that list trivia. Have you asked User:Lightmouse for his opinion? --Jza84 | Talk 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVD

Hello Richard, I'm just dropping you this note to let you know that the Huddersfield article has been selected to go on to the Yorkshire section of the Wikipedia DVD version 0.7. As you have been doing such a good job of editing and maintaining the article I am reluctant to try to improve it. If you have any bits and pieces that you were planning to change, now might be a good time as the Yorkshire WikiProject members are having an improvement drive on the selected aticles. I enclose, below, a copy of our newsletter which has a fuller explanation and links. Thanks for your work.--Harkey (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax

Sorry, I think we have crossed paths in Halifax, but the edits we made were much the same. I'll leave the article for a while so you can edit in peace.--Harkey (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Colne Valley Web

Possibly you can explain why you keep removing these? I seem to have missed something. The Colne Valley Web is a useful and entirely free community resource, that can be contributed to in much the same way as wikipedia itself can. It is written by representatives from local community groups (anyone can apply to contribute for free) and has much information on local news and events in the area. It isn't trying to sell any products or services. Yes, it does contain advertising but I see nothing in the Wikipedia:spam article that has anything against that. Wikipedia:External links states that they don't allow "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." Obviously this is subjective, but I don't consider two banner ads 'Objectionable amounts of advertising" when compared to the amount of content and local information that is available on the site. I'm a little new to this, so please bear with me.

80.42.187.147 (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You will note that the home page of the website opens with a banner ad, directly above that is a link to another page. The links title is 'Advertise with us'. There are other banner ads, with links, elsewhere, This indicates the website is designed to earn money from advertising services or companies. Wikipedia is not designed as a place to promote websites or for advertising. See item 5 on WP:SOAP. Please note I don't delete links lightly, and on occasion place them myself, but I have been around long enough to know what is and isn't permitted. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with 80.42.187.147 that your removal of this link is somewhat over-zealous. The advertising on the site is incidental to the very relevant information about the communities in the Colne Valley. Your assertion that the adverts are there to allow somebody to "earn money" overlooks the simple economics that websites cost money to operate. It's not unreasonable for a site operator to sell a few adverts to try to recoup their costs, and this is how many not-for-profit sites are funded. If you are selling adverts it is reasonable to have a page telling people how to buy them. I further agree that two inline ads is not an "objectionable amount" by the standards of some other sites.

If a Wikipedia article had been created about the Colne Valley Web site, then your reference to WP:SOAP would be valid, but adding it as an external link to existing articles where it is relevant doesn't appear to be in contradiction of this policy. Stevebentley (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note the website is new, having less than 1600 hits to date and view of your comments I have placed a request on the Wiki Spam Project Talk Page - See this item requesting the website be evaluated to see if it is permissable for use. I feel this is the best way to resolve the situation. If it is permissable then all well and good, however if not then it will probably be blacklisted and removed automatically by a bot should it be placed on any articles in the future. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The decision of the website evaluation is that the website is not permissable. The comment was:-

"...you are correct in removing the links per WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. It's a WordPress website (blog publishing site) with limited to no editorial oversight and no established notability. The links were clearly added to promote the website..."

If the website link is inserted again it will be removed and eventually blocked. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bowman

To be honest, I wouldn't know Matt Bowman from a hole in the ground - I had already reverted the edits by 86.137.68.103, but on closer inspection the article was then self-contradictory. I assumed there was previous vandalism and put it back to the last version I could see that made sense. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds city region

Spotted your reverts on IP adding this to articles. There was an article Leeds city region created recently with a reference to a map by Leeds city council and a link added to the Leeds article. I was wondering if you think that this is really required as it seem to be just Leeds trying to make itself look good. Keith D (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, Thanks for the heads up! I took a quick look at the article. Following the history of contributions by the article creator Stevenward26 and also the contributions of the anon editor 86.149.19.167, who had added to it (who is probably the same person) I also felt it was a bit promotional. I have reverted the incorrect details (three edits) by 86.149.19.167 added to the Leeds article on 20 November to your previous edit. However no further action is required to the Leeds city region article, as Q Chris has already spotted it and correctly redirected it to the West Yorkshire Urban Area article created by Morwen on 27 November 2005. That article is based on the census statistics from the Office for National Statistics:- West Yorkshire Urban Area. I have also put a redirect on the talk page to match the article on. As an aside I am also curious as to why Halifax is not included on the census list, as queried by SE16 on the Talk Page back in may 2007! Richard Harvey (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tidy up. I had not realised that the West Yorkshire Urban Area article was for a similar area. Keith D (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You - Turnbridge Locomotive Lift Bridge

Just to say a quick Thank You for your photograph of the Turnbridge Locomotive Lift Bridge, which adds wonderfully to a relatively short article on this unique lift bridge. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan

Honestly, the reason I chose the Catalan tag over the Spanish was that I was afraid it was being underused. If it's an issue for a lot of people I'd be more than happy to double-tag them all with the Catalan and Spanish tags. I do want to tag them with something, though, because there's a lot of expansion that can be done with them.

Sorry for any trouble it's caused. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at them sometime soon. Probably tomorrow, as I haven't the time this evening, I fear. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turnbridge Lift Bridge

Richard Who ever used the term Turnbridge Locomotive Lift Bridge had not researched the bridge very well.

I have looked into it and either it is officially known asTurnbridge Lift Bridge or locally sometime called Locomotive Bridge. Merging the two is wrong - I have gone through and changed all references.

Yes, I note, you hadnt called it that either --Keith 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture caught my eye, which is why I found the page. As the idea of a "loco" lift intrigued me, I then just did a bit of checking on the references, and none called it the full TLLB. I went checking through old maps and the railway runs alongside (at various distances) but never crosses, so there is only the comment on the shape being a Loco. --Keith 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunford Bridge

Hi Richard. Sorry the move of Dunford Bridge to Dunford upset you. I'm perfectly happy with the outcome, but just didn't think there was enough information to justify two separate pages when I did it. I was following the guidance at Help:Merging and moving pages :-

There are several good reasons to merge a page:
#Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
#Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.
Really didn't think it would be controversial! Skinsmoke (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It wasn't a case of it upsetting me, I was astonished that it happened when it should not have! A civil Parish is an area that includes many localities all able to be individual articles. In this case you did not not merge anything together, You created a new article, Dunford, South Yorkshire and then moved the Dunford Bridge article into it, which was effectively nothing more than a retitling of the Dunford Bridge article, bulking up the new article and seemingly making the Civil Parish the main article. On a prior occasion Dunford had been redirected to Dunford Bridge as the article was a minor stub. The Parish of Dunford is not 'Centred' on 'Dunford Bridge' as the hamlet is situated in the extreme western edge of it, with Cumberworth to the east and Crowe Edge virtually central between them. The civil Parish of Dunford includes several other villages and hamlets such as Carlecoates, Flouch, Maythorn, and Victoria that can become articles in their own right like the nearby places of Thurlstone and Millhouse Green. There are several important water sources, such as the Broadstone, Dunford Bridge, Harden, Ingbirchworth, Royd Moor, Scout Dyke, Snailsden and the Upper and Lower Windleden Reservoirs, again potential individual articles similar to the nearby Langsett Reservoir and Howden Reservoir articles. A major and notable industry is based in the parish Hepworth Ceramic Holdings PLC again a potential independent article. NB: Based on the idea of merging an article that is unlikely to be expanded into a broader topic, perhaps it would be wise to merge the Dunford, South Yorkshire article into the Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley article! ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Some people don't recognise an apology when it jumps up and hits them in the face! Skinsmoke (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did ;) But as you also quoted several reasons to merge the articles I thought I should explain why I didn't agree - for the enlightenment of others who come across the message! I assume you have noted that I have slightly expanded the Dunford, South Yorkshire article, since they were split apart! Richard Harvey (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must say, you've done a nice job on it! I hadn't put the page on my Watchlist, so grateful for you mentioning the improvement. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilf Lunn

Richard, as an anonymous user has started to put the Wilf Lunn website link back a number of times, I have followed your suggestion of a few months back and requested comment on the links suitability at Wikipedia_talk:Spam. Thozza (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thozza! Thanks for the heads up, an excellent idea! I have made a comment on the Wikipedia_talk:Spam item and will leave it to others to decide on the issue. Richard Harvey (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Mehmood

Hi Richard, I dont quite get this speedy deletion thing to be honest! ive seen article on wiki what are just one line long and they dont get deleted! Just thought id do a little article on Tariq as he is a very well known guy esp amognst the British Pakistani community and had done loads. He also host a show called The point on the recently lauched KBC channel too. Rajput

When creating a new article it is essential to get checkable references of awards, and any other notable achievement that person is associated with. References that are linked to must be authorative. Some websites are actually built from the information supplied by Wikipedia, as a sort of mirror website, in which case that website would not be suitable, nor are blogs about people by unknown editors or 'community' websites. Respectable international News Media reports or government websites are good as the sources are considered more 'official'. Mainline TV channels are OK, but ones that are only restricted to viewing by subscription fees are unable to be checked by the majority of viewers. Websites that require people to register or supply personal info to view tham are also not suitable. Like you I agree that Tariq Mehmood was a suitable candidate for an article, having been the co-director of a film that won an international award makes him sufficiently notable for that, at least to me it does. Plus having books reviewed by the national press, such as the Guardian newspaper, also indicates the same. With regard to the 'One Line' articles you refer to, could you give me a few wikilinks to some?

NB: When you place a message please type four Tildes at the end; IE ~~~~ that is a code for wiki to automatically add your username and the time and date of your post. That way editors know who to reply to! Richard Harvey (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Bus Routes

I have created a quality drive similar to the operator drive, based on some of the points I have previously raised regarding bus routes in the West Midlands. I know you have previously been involved in similar discussions in the past, so your input and participation would be greatly welcomed! Find the page at WP:UKBRQDRIVE. Thanks! jenuk1985 (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachyals

LOL!! We have Richard but ill let u tidy it up if u want.

Flags

Hello Richard, I just got your message and understand your concerns regarding the flags. Also, you are correct that Mirpur comes in Azad Kashmir (it's the capital), however Azad Kashmir is in Pakistan if you may not know (it's the Pakistani administered-Kashmir whilst the Indian administered Kashmir is known as Jammu and Kashmir). To make this confusion distant, Kashmir is basically a disputed region between Pakistan and India, the only difference being that it is divided into the two countries for administration. Azad Kashmir has thus always politically been included in Pakistan whilst the Indian J&K is included in India, despite the disputed issues.

As regarding the flags, state-flags in Pakistan are generally considered as official District, City, Town, Union Council etc flags as well, as they respectively intend to represent the entire state. By the way, these flags were already inserted into numerous templates prior to my edits, however the image wasn't working and I am only clarifying it by putting the right keywords.

If you still have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate going back to my talk page!. Lahore 2009 (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) FROM Lahore :P[reply]

ARNYALS

Hi please provide referencable evidence that ARNYALS are JAT. As far as I am aware they are RAJPUTS.

As far as I am aware there is no information on the internet that provides referenceable evidence to prove or disprove your statement either way. If you need information for a specific purpose then I suggest you research it by your own means. However take note that many websites are mirror's of wikipedia using the information provided here as though they have provided it themselves, so like wikipedia should not be used as a referenceable source. Also please place four tildes at the end of your message so editors know who to reply to. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick Check Requested

Hi,

I saw a post that you are the Archivist for the Duke of Wellinton's Regiment.

I am working on battle honours of the Indian Sappers & Miners. Would you have any British book of battle honours of WWII which list the battle honours for say Chindits 1944? The Bengal Sappers claim it, but no details are available in the only ref I posess:

Singh, Sarbans (1993), Battle Honours of the Indian Army 1757–1971, New Delhi: Vision Books, ISBN 81-7094-115-6

This is only one of a large handful of discrepancies that I am aware of. Thanks in advance.

AshLin (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AshLin! I will have to check on the book side of things for you, I am mostly involved with photographic archives and as such am painfully aware our regiments WWII Burma action is 'Somewhat lacking' in photographic material. However I am aware that several elements of Bengal Sappers were involved in the Burma campaigns, so it is possible that individual units were attached to British and other Commonwealth Infantry units that received the Chindit Battle Honour. There is also this obituary from the Telegraph which mentions them being there:- Major Cyril Gordon MC who served in the Arakan commanding a section of 74th Indian Field Company, King George V's Own Bengal Sappers and Miners Group. Also in 1944 an 1153 foot Pontoon bridge nicknamed “Grub Bridge” was constructed by 33rd Corps Troops Engineers, consisting of 67, 76 and 361 Field Companies and 322 Field Park Company of the Bengal Sappers, under Lt Col F Seymour Williams, across the River Chindwin at Kalewa in Burma. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2009

(UTC)

Thanks, I'll await your reply. Also thx for taking the trouble to add this additional info. all grist to the mill!

(For info) Only a field platoon or so may have been attached to the inf bns during ops. The fd coys would be on the ORBAT of the divisions and placed under the Commander, Royal Engineers. However, the practice of affiliating a fd particular fd coy to a bde was also existing in divisions where 'adequate' engr resources were to be found. AshLin (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked through the books in the regiments library I think the best one for you to try and obtain will be:- Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies, Editor: Anthony Barker, Published by: Ian Allen, 1986 - ISBN 0711016003 & ISBN-13 9780711016002. To get a Battle Honour the HQ and a minimum of 50% of the regiment's sub-units have to be in the theatre. So unless 50% of the Benghal Sappers units were attached to the Chindit columns they would not have been awarded the BH . Though its worth noting CHINDITS is more a theatre honour than a specific battle honour as there were a number of major Chindit operations and no specific major battle.

Thanks a lot for the ref. Now I got to think about getting it to India. AshLin (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh BTW, the Bengal Sappers are a Regiment like the Duke's Own, each fd coy until the formation of regts in Indian Army in early sixties is akin to a bn and each coy could earn a batle honour if HQ & 50% of its subunits participated in a battle. One of the fd coys in the Regt I commanded 20 Fd Coy (Bombay Sappers) has 29 battle & theatre honours, the most in the Indian Army for a fd coy and should rank very high amongst the RE fd coys in this issue too.AshLin (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal?

Hi Richard, I noticed your issue with 91.110.34.121. I'm intrigued, as I've never seen a similar case. Is overlinking vandalism, or just a matter of taste? From a quick look the edits don't seem to harm Wikipedia as such, but I might be wrong. Of course, continuing in a relentless swathe of overlinking with no response to warnings is kinda odd! Fences and windows (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In its own right it would not be vandalism, however that particular new anon is causing a problem, having also been previously warned by an admin, but has then continued to revert back to his previously reverted articles See:- Holmfirth, that in itself indicates an intention to purposely cause disruption, also if you take a look through the amount of edits done by the anon on the Hendon article they continue in the same vein of linking common words creating incorrect wikilinks and changing disambiguated ones. A few constructive edits by the same editor is a practice used by some banned editors, as a Sockpuppet, to make the IP appear to be used by multiple users and appear to be legitimate. Note the editor also appears to be reversing some of his own edits, more the sort of things to be done in a Sandbox. Also the IP of the editor appears to be a static IP link for an Orange mobile phone, hardly the medium for a constructive editor to use but perfect for a 'disruptive one.' Hence my reversion of multiple edits by the editor. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate the explanation. I've not seen such behaviour before; the mind boggles. Fences and windows (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following another round of edits the Anon has now received a 12 hour block from Kralizec!. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map Error

Thanks for pointing that out the penistone comes from copying and pasteing from File:Penistonemap 1954.png. The sheet number and series number is correct however.Geni 16:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tandey and Hitler

Is there a source which could confirm private Henry Tandey "saving" Hitler during the WWI is a myth? Also, I would be interested to know more about how and why this myth was created. --Ukas (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have already been supplied on the [Talk:Henry_Tandey|Tandey Talkpage] IE John Spencer the Duke of Wellingtons Museum curator, who still has the book that Tandy used to sign the VC and other medals, which he donated to the regiment, out for special occasions. The other is Scott Flaving the Chief Clerk of the Yorkshire Regiment, which included both the former Green Howards and Duke of Wellingtons Regiment's, in Which Tandey served during the First World War. As for the origin of the myth:- The original wartime report in the news media was a case of Tandey using the inexpertise of a new young reporter as an opportunity to get a few free beers for a story, whilst pulling the reporters leg. He did not expect it to get to the stage it did and be reported in the national media, after which it was too late to do anything about it. As for the story regarding the Marcoing painting this again is a case of the Officers of the Green Howards regiment, at that time, embellishing the myth to impress young new officers to the regiment, again over time the truth has been obscured in favour of the myth. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I believe it's a myth. Problem is that you'll get about 10-15 hits when you do google book search with the words henry, tandey & hitler etc. Since this is true there's a reasonable chance there exists even more books with the same myth or different versions and as said the story is enforced by some internet articles. Because of all this it's easier to put it in Wikipedia with several books as sources than to try to negate this story. And I can't use my own interview of the Chief Clerk, who has a book about it, as a reliable reference without publishing it somewhere else first. --Ukas (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will get as many where the story is disputed such as [1]. Unfortunately many people prefer to believe myths than reality. most seem to have also missed out on the fact that Tandey had actually transferred into the Duke of Wellington's when he performed the actions that saw him awarded his medals, not simply attached due to his own unit having been disbanded. Fortunately his army records show the truth. Also at the time when his medals were sold by his widow at auction, then presented to the Green Howards Museum by Sir Ernest Harrison OBE, they were actually the property of the Duke of Wellington's museum, to whom Tandey had already donated them several years earlier. Incidentally when did you interview the chief Clerk? I mentioned your message above to him yesterday and he is unaware of doing any recent interviews on Tandey. Nor does he have a book about it, though there is a file in the Regimental archives on Tandey in which media cutting etc are kept, along with many other files on other notable Regimental members! Richard Harvey (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't interview the Chief Clerk at all as I only debated that interviewing him would be pointless because I can't use an unpublished interview as a source here. Could have put more thought to writing it, but I'm prone to make such mistakes as I'm not a native English-speaker. --Ukas (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you mentioned he "has a book about it" gave me the impression you had spoken to him. ;) but not to worry. As for your English:- its 100% better than my Finnish! :0. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Award

		The Genuine Yorkshire Rose
		Presented to Richard Harvey for contributions to numerous articles supported by WikiProject Yorkshire

--Harkey (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information that i added in my last edit was as far as i knew, true. The boroughs of Bradford, Wakefield, Barnsley, Kirklees, Calderdale, Selby, York, Craven and Harrogate, are all part of the Leeds City Region, there is infact references on the Leeds City Region page. Apologies anyway for any problems caused, EVEN though the information was infact true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.38.135 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds City Region (Development agency)

Good move. I couldn't think what to do with it.--Harkey (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I thought so too. Unfortunately another editor has reverted the move.Richard Harvey (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, same with Manchester, I see.--Harkey (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it refers to itself as a "partnership" here I think we should be on safe ground. Otherwise I was trying, "Softly, softly catchee monkey". Thanks for your edits to Kings Manor School, by the way.--Harkey (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help where I can! LCR title does seem better now, though if reverted back I believe a majority consensus would have it as per your move! Richard Harvey (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King's Manor School

Hi Richard, thanks for stepping in on this, and please see Talk:King's_Manor_School#Ref_for_.22quality_of_work_in_PE.22 for a comment/query. Very nice pic of where you live, btw! :) Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brighouse

Hi Richard. Noting that you appear to have an interest in this page, I'm just letting you know that in response to the appeal on the discussion page of Brighouse I have added some images that I happened to come across on Wiki Commons. Please do edit, move or remove them as you see fit. I can easily do a day trip to Brighouse, so if there are any photos of particular locations which are required for the page instead of or in addition to these images, please let me know (an excuse for a day out for me!). Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've done a slight copy edit to the article and deleted some out of date material, as well as reformated things to include the images. The rail station panorama isn't really required as it is shown in a better format on the Brighouse railway station article. I've added an old image of the bus station from 1985, to compare against the new image of the refurbished station. Some images of public buildings / town centre would be good, such as the library and especially one of the Town Hall to replace the 'Welcome to Calderdale' sign I have put in the infobox. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. You're doing a great job on the Brighouse page. OK, Brighouse library and town hall - will do when I get the chance. I guess I'll need an out-of-hours timing so I'm not just snapping cars and buses. Will see what I can do. Today I'm thinking of getting into a river to photograph a bridge. Every day another adventure, eh. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: one down, two to go (see images of bridge and stream on Burn Bridge page).--Storye book (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can lend you a Drysuit. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thx for the message. Of course you're welcome to edit the images as you wish. As it happens I already had the required versions, but hadn't uploaded them all as it was getting late. Here they are:
- File:Brighouse Town Hall 002a.jpg
- File:Brighouse memorial 026a.jpg
- --Storye book (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those will do nicely. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brighouse talkpage photo template

Hi Richard. Funny you should say that. I'd been struggling for some days to sort that one out. So that's where it was. Thanks for sorting it.

It had been bugging me as I'd just discovered Geograph, which has public domain images of places, so I'd been working through the West Yorks appeals for photos, and gradually giving them a photo and removing their photo-request templates - and of course the Brighouse template just didn't want to go. For the other pages, it's a slightly awkward job as some of them already have photos and people have forgotten to remove the template - or maybe they are hoping for even more photos. And of course there must be many stub pages which need photos but have no photo-request template.

So - if you come across a photoless page about a place in West or North Yorks, and if you don't want to do the photos yourself, please let me know and I'll see if I can sort out a photo or two. It's a good time of year to take photos. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I have just deleted some entries to day from the Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Places list, nothing special but people have a bad habit of placing a 'Blanket' request for images, which is a No-No on that page as they should request specific images only! I've also placed a Landscape image of the Brighouse area in the article History section. If I was to upload all my personal images to Wiki then they would need around an extra 3TB of disc space and I would need a year to do it, working 24/7! Richard Harvey (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your panorama - good photo - I'm envious. I've been waiting to see how long it stays there before you move it down the page a bit, though (click on "hide" in the contents box . . .) Just teasing.--Storye book (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle, very subtle! ;) Try it now! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still does it - but maybe you didn't deserve the windup - if you reckon it's OK now, then it could be my browser (Chrome.) Don't think it's the size of my monitor though (I'm told it's standard 17-inch). I've found I've had to put all my panorama-shaped images at the bottom of the page, as they always foul up with the infobox - so I was quite pleased to see I wasn't the only one. But maybe I'm the only one seeing it?--Storye book (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as a wind up. :) I was using my 17" monitor when I did it, set at 1400pixel resolution, so it didn't happen then which is why I never spotted it. I did the correction on a 15" monitor set at 1280x800, using 2/3rds of the screen width and it was also okay on that and also on my 10" netbook set at 1024x600, which just leaves your monitor! Are you using it full screen width and what browser are you using? Richard Harvey (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes full screen width and brand new. But the browser is Google Chrome. I haven't tried the Brighouse page in IE, and I suspect you're right - it's the browser. Chrome has no problems with anything else on Wiki though - except the new template that puts the references into two columns (Reflist|2 inside two pairs of braces-brackets). But apparently that references template only works on Firefox. The only reason I haven't checked this overlapping business out in IE is that it's so slow. Maybe tomorrow. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: finally got round to trying it in IE - see what you mean - page is programmed not to collapse in IE, so that's why you're seeing no problem. Suggest you enlarge the pic back to original size. I don't suppose there are that many of us on Chrome; apologies for disruption. Meanwhile, Brighouse#Brighouse Art Circle has gained some useful extra information, but unfortunately in peacock language. I didn't try to edit it as I have no local knowledge - but thought you might want to sort it out before a bot tags it. Up to you. --Storye book (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the heads up on the Art Circle advertising link. This keeps popping up and getting deleted from time to time by various editors. If I remember right the last time was was KeithD back in November 2008. Its always from the same Anon IP using a Dynamic IP supplied by NTL (Virgin Media) to Tesco, IE a staff member. The user has been warned many times not to do it, but as its a Dynamic IP it would require the complete range group (82.31.0.0 - 82.31.47.255)to be blocked. Its less complicated to simply remove it. I have tried in the past to just convert it to a general reference to the group but the user keeps changing it back to a membership advert, hence the total removal. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - good job I let you know, then. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AFGH HELM SOTS-01.jpg

Hey -- for your map of Helmand Province, two questions. First of all, according to the Camp Bastion article, this map, and according to coordinates based on info from the Afghan government, the camp is closer to Gereshk. So I don't know if you placed that correctly on your map.

Secondly, how did you make the map? You might have noticed my terribly horrible attempt at a map on the Operation Strike of the Sword article. I'm trying to improve that. Basically, how did you correctly place all the towns on the map? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Your correct on the Camp bastion location. I had moved the marker and text down the page whilst I filled in the Nad Ali and Gereshk markers. I will correct that and also put a marker in for Nawzad whilst I am at it. A friend is a cartographer and is able to provide me with NASA Geo images. I do some photography and archive work for the Yorkshire Regiment, who co-ordinated and controlled the logistics during the Battle of Musa Qala, so I am able to check locations fairly easy and then use corel Draw to put the graphics on the photo's. However you can also take a look at this:- [2] British Ministry of Defence 2008 map that is available on the internet, though it cannot be uploaded to Wiki as it is British Crown copyright and not public domain. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the original point you had on the map may have been the location of Camp Leatherneck. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely as Leatherneck is arising adjacent to Bastion, as noted on the article page, though at 443 acres it is considerably larger in size! Richard Harvey (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed the Economist map was wrong - it has some other inconsistencies. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the email, but I think I'm done working on that map, if only out of frustration. Feel free to edit it if you find any other inconsistencies. Bsimmons666 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bramhope Tunnel

Hi Richard. Just letting you know that one of the pages I created, Bramhope Tunnel, is (at time of writing this) in queue 5 here, so should be on the front page in the DYK list maybe tomorrow. However I'm just off on a week's holiday and won't be able to keep an eye on it. I appreciate it's not your patch, but if you feel like keeping half an eye on it (if you are around), I'd be most grateful. Of course the admins will be watching it for vandalism, but they won't be able to deal with Yorks stuff. No worries if you're too busy etc. I'll also mention it to Keith D who is apparently Yorks-based. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem! I've just added it to my watch list. I already keep an eye on the Standedge Tunnels article anyway, mostly as its fairly close to my location and tags on from the Huddersfield Narrow Canal and associated articles article that I've edited and done photo's for. Have a nice holiday! Richard Harvey (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks - much appreciated. Yes I had a quick glance at Standedge this am - looks nice. Am also interested in tunnel under Harrogate - there's info on internet. Will have a go at it when I come back, unless someone does it first (hope they do - they'd do a better job). Laters.--Storye book (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Regiment

I took the time to explain why I made the changes I did on the talk page. Can you explain why I was entirely wrong before you revert the entire edit. I've seen your edit summary and I still disagree that what you have reinserted is all relevant to an article about a unit that is less than 5 years old. NtheP (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was replied to on the talk page, as you have now discovered. It takes time to write a long reply, so you should at least allow time for someone to reply. I will reply to your other comment later, though I now need to go and care for some elderly relatives. I would prefer to co-operate on the article rather than have to be defensive. Perhaps my part time work as the regiments photographer and archivist leads me to see things in a different way to most, though I do confirm my work with others more knowledgeable than I in the antecedent regiments history, However I have personally served in both the Dukes and the Yorkshire Volunteers! Richard Harvey (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, Having just lost my father I sincerely hope that your relatives are well. Thank you for being so conciliatory. I too wish to co-operate over articles and have no desire for an arguement about this or any other article. I assure you that the edits were made in good faith and that perhaps we are not so far apart on this and it just comes down to style. Having just had one article go through peer review and GA review I am well aware of the comments passed about that article and, badly, I was trying to include some of these points into the article on the YORKS. NtheP (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concern, its a case of suck it and see on a daily basis, with one poorly one sapping the energy of the other, who is also presenting similar problems. Then again when you are bordering on 90 then problems are to be expected. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not easy, my sympathys. It was like that with my mother - her illness took quite toll on my father. NtheP (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bankfield Museum

Just come back from holiday and spotted your excellent addition to Bankfield Museum (thanks!) plus your comment, in the previous conversation, about serving in the Dukes. Maybe you might be interested to add something to Stratfield Saye House. I went there with my ex in the 1970s on a job interview for farms/estate manager. There was an avenue of wellingtonias so tightly planted that the bases of the trunks had all fused together. I don't know whether the public gets to see that. The working conditions were feudal to say the least, sadly. As farm manager's wife I would have had to work full time in the byre for nothing, and my children would work for free after school, even though I was a professional person and the kids were at primary school. They lived then by different rules. We were instructed that if we were to meet the current duke we would have had to doff cap, touch forelock or curtsey as appropriate. But apart from all that, it was moving to see the great loyalty shown by all who knew The Family as they were called by the employees. Luckily my ex was offered a proper job elsewhere. I saw Lady Jane on the London tube around 1981. She was young then and very beautiful and had the Wellington profile. Of course none of that would fit into the article, but it does seem that there must be material out there that could be added.--Storye book (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity I looked on Geograph to see if they have the wellingtonias avenue, but they don't. This photo has the remains of an avenue, which could mean that the one I described has been somehow thinned out. However I think not, as the trees in the picture are near the house and in public view, whereas the close-knit avenue was away from the house and in the 70s had no public access. It was a quite long avenue, with a good enough road for light estate traffic.--Storye book (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you had a good holiday. Now to be honest I have never been to Stratfield Saye, so have little knowledge about it. Though I do know that there is a 'Wellingtonia Avenue' located on the B3448, just where it joins the A341, to the west of Crowthorne rail station. The redwoods on it were planted in 1863 in memory of the 1st Duke. Perhaps the one you are thinking of is the group planted by the 2nd Duchess of Wellington in 1857, which I have been told is somewhere near the 'Pleasure Grounds'. The 8th Duke was our Colonel-in-Chief up until the regiment was merged to form the Yorkshire Regiment in 2006. Shortly prior to that we had a regimental weekend at the regimental barracks in Warminster and presented His Grace with a 'Mouseman chair' specially carved for him at a 'Drumhead Service'. Lady Jane is still a slim and attractive looking woman and was standing next to her father when I took this photo at the top of this article:- Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington. I did take some of Jane, when I did the photography for the opening days of the refurbishment phases for the museum. However as she values her privacy I have not uploaded any of her specifically, though you can just see her peeking over the shoulder of Prince Andrew on the photo I took at the Yorkshire Regiment's Church service in York shown on this article:- Yorkshire Regiment. A short video of the Drumhead service from Warminster is located:- Here, in which you will be able to catch a few glimpses of her and the Duchess standing next to Sir Evelyn. Which reminds me I also put a small video I made of a walk-through 'Taster' of the museum, after the 2nd phase was opened:- Here. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds City Region Partnership

Thanks again for your help. I'm 'cream crackered' for now please feel free to carry on!!--Harkey (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thongsbridge

Hi Richard. can you take another look at the change you made to the population figure. The reference you have put in is to the wiki page, my guess is it is probably a paste error. Keith D (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for the heads up Keith, I was doing that many pages I missed that one, its now been corrected! Richard Harvey (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pimpin' NPS

I agree with you, but I have a finite amount of editing time; I reverted the ones I found first. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76th Regiment archives

Hello. My father-in-law is doing some research involving the 76th Regiment of Foot. He would like to obtain a list of all the officers (and even men, if this was possible) serving in the regiment in September 1814. Could you suggest what might be the best way for us to find this information? Thank you very much for your help, WikiJedits (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thats an interesting subject and I wish him well with it. It is normal for people doing historical research to contact the archive departments of the regiments concerned for detailed information, for which a nominal fee is usually levied. In the case of the 76th it will be the archives department of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment at Wellesly Park in Halifax, West Yorkshire. Fortunately for you I can save you some time in going through that process. Unfortunately documented information on the 76th, at that time, is somewhat 'wanting'. Although some individual names of officers and men pop up on photographs donated to the regimental archives and museum (I am the regimental photo archivist) there are no formal lists to be found. What I can tell you is that following the end of the Peninsular War the 76th embarked, at Bordeaux, France, on the 14th of June 1814, under the command of Lt-Col John Wardlaw. The Regiment at that time is believed to have had 31 officers and 609 other ranks, as stated in the Brereton/ Savoury . They sailed for The St LawrenceRiver, disembarked at the end of August and joined the British forces at Chambly. They set off on the 3rd of September, from Chambly to Plattsburg, with Major General Robinson’s Brigade, along with two other Brigades under the command of Lt Gen Sir Francis Rottenburg's. They arrived at Plattsburg late on the 6th of September to the north of the river Saranac. There they waited for the Royal Navy to come up the river

At Plattsburg things got stuffed up, by the Royal Navy, resulting in the, already implemented, attack on Plattsburg being called off. Capt Purchas plus three other officers and the rest of his Light Company skirmishers, who were well ahead of the rest of the advancing troops when the calls to retreat were sounded, got cut off from the rest of the troops. Capt Purchas was killed whilst waving his white waistcoat, as a surrender flag. After that the Light Company was split up and moved to different locations as prisoners. The 76th as a Regiment was withdrawn, in October, to cantonments across the border in Canada. Shortly after that 190 time expired NCO’s and men were discharged. Had it been up to full strength the regiment would have been posted to Europe as they were seasoned troops from the Peninsular war the previous year, as Napoleon had escaped from Elba, and the War against France re-started. The 76th moved to Quebec in 1815, ostensibly to embark for England. Unfortunately for them the order was countermanded and they moved to Kingston, then wandered back and forth between them, Fort George and Montreal. They eventually left Canada in 1827, arriving in Fermoy, Ireland, in September the same year. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you very much for the detailed answer. He responded that this is valuable information. He's very pleased, and will probably contact the archive as he might have a name to contribute, at least. Thank you again for your kind help. WikiJedits (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandywine Battlefield map

So that you may have some insight into my recent editorial actions, read here. Best wishes. -- Thekohser 12:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney

delete indistinct 'distant' image, that does not add to the article

The image is "distant" on purpose. I uploaded it to show the combination of new industry (oil) in the background meeting the old industry (agriculture) in the foreground! I think it is quite suitable and adds to the article about Orkney today. I believe you should reverse your edit. Regards, --Gregory J Kingsley (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that the image, either in subject or quality, supports the section, which is headed Economy. When you look at the layout of the image, the bottom half is composed of empty fields that are indistinct in their usage, though, admittedly, are more than likely to be pasture for sheep grazing. Two thirds of the top half of the image is composed of sky, leaving only the bottom third showing three tankers that are probably at anchor waiting to be called to the Flotta terminal for loading. The image is of low resolution and contrast. Compare that image with the Panorama one further up the page. Now if it was like that with three tankers clearly at anchor, rather than as distant fuzzy images then I would change my mind. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Yes, this is a pasture for grazing. Hence the point of the photo - rural agriculture meets modern economics (oil industry). I have another photo (with only two tankers) taken at the same time/same place that shows cows and a farmhouse that confirms this.

2 - Yes, that "bottom" third shows 3 tankers. Realize this picture is NOT a picture of tankers. This is a picture showing two integral parts of the Orkney economy: traditional agriculture and industry of more modern times. You are judging it as a picture of three tankers (as if this were an article about tankers). It is not. See the picture as a whole and the value it brings as an overall statement of where Orkney is today.

3 - If you compare my image with the panorama, you will find the panorama is actually of less resolution than my image and the tankers, too, are far worse than mine. You don't notice the lesser resolution because of the brightness and visibility on that day. My image looks grainy only because of the slight mist in the air reducing the ambient light and air clarity - but I assure you it has a higher resolution than the panorama. Therefore, reducing my photo size by 50% could placate your issues by eliminating that graininess while keep its value. Furthermore, the panorama is useless because it takes too long to download, everything is too small except the road in the foreground, and its shape is not monitor-friendly for the average user.

Most importantly, I believe having this image adds value to the article than not having it all. If someone in upcoming years has a better image, the option is always there for it to be replaced then. --Gregory J Kingsley (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brighouse

What is it about Brighouse that attracts so many different people to fiddle with it? The latest person has very helpfully corrected the population number but has added yet another citation in the intro. Wikipedia:Intro_section#Citations suggests that the lead para is a summary and that it should be mainly referring to citations within the body of the article - if I understand it correctly. Should the sections be tidied, do you think? --Storye book (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks Richard. Glad you enjoyed your hols. --Storye book (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brighouse art circle

They're back. On this occasion I was able to adapt their contribution quite easily into an acceptable form with inline ref (sort of), but please check and remove if you see fit. I suppose they could come back and turn it into an ad again as they did previously. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they are still a 'social club' attempting to use Wikipedia as a way of promoting the club. If one such entry is made then all other groups, that meet at the Community Centre, will claim its equally acceptable to advertise their 'Morning coffee and biscuit' events! :( With these types of edits I tend to work on a principle that another editor advised:- If it wouldn't be put in the Encyclopedia Brittanica ...... Richard Harvey (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard - thanks for sorting that out. Yes I agree; if I see that again I'll zap it.--Storye book (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Wellington Regiment

Hi Richard - got your message. Well you've given me a job and a half: it serves me right for continually asking you to tidy up Brighouse. My link with military history came about when I did masses of editing on the Alexandrov Ensemble, due to the Red Army connection. My (somewhat tenuous) connections with Wellington are as follows.

In the late 70s I attended a job interview at Strathfield Saye with my ex who was a farms manager. Talk about medieval. He would have been paid a minimum wage, and I (an educated woman) and my little kids would have had to run the calves-shed 24/7 for no wage, complete with bunging the calves full of antibiotics, as they told me - when antibiotics in meat was already controversial. Also we would have had to touch the forelock, tip the hat or bob-curtsey, as appropriate, if we met "The Family" as they were known, in the grounds. However I have nothing against the original Wellington. My ancestors were all trying to look like him, and my grandfather Arthur was named after him, as were millions of kids at the time.

I once found myself sitting opposite his daughter, Lady Jane Wellesley, in the Tube in around 1982. She was as pretty any Paris Hilton with her long blonde hair and very expensive clothes - but when she turned her head, there was the famous Wellingtone profile in full. Astonishing. By that time she had refused an offer of marriage from the heir to the throne and was working for the BBC.

I also went to school in Canterbury with army kids from the barracks: Kent Buffs. They no longer exist, of course. That's a great shame. It was a great experience to see the Buffs doing their yearly march around Canterbury. That practice was stopped countrywide by the army, too. It was a great promotional activity, and even the pacifists among us (including me) were very proud of them with their drums and smart uniforms, and the little kids running alongside with their stick-batons.

So I'm afraid that's my military connection. Of course I'll look over your work though - sometimes an outsider's eye can be useful - and I can check for typos and the usual Wiki stuff. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your right about her profile and looks! Here is a link to a photo I took when we opened the first phase of the Museum upgrade, at Bankfield, so you can see what she looks like now:- [3] I will remove the image after you have seen it, as Jane does like her privacy and is somewhat camera shy. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've seen it: you can remove it now. She has no need to be camera-shy - she's as good-looking as she ever was - and still looks just as expensive - with the same haircut and the same simple black clothes under the jacket. Class, eh!--Storye book (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76th Regiment of Foot

OK - started with the above. Mainly commas and one or two typos in the proofreading department. You may wish to go over my changes just to check that I haven't fallen foul of military jargon. I put an apostrophe in "Harcourts", for example, but it may be an old regiment name that has never had an apostrophe? Queen's Buffs had an apostrophe, though.

However there's one thing that worries me on the Wikifying side. There is only one inline reference and that is a broken link (at least it doesn't work for me). Do you have any book titles that you could bung into the ref section, quick before it gets tagged, plus maybe a note near the top of the article saying that everything below comes from the books listed in References? Then you can do the inline refs properly at your leisure. I'll look at the rest of the articles tomorrow when I can. Nice article apart from the refs prob, by the way. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Will do, after my eyes have settled back on their stalks! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Harcourt, 1st Viscount Harcourt

Done. Not much to do - mainly just added the subheadings. But same problem as previous one: inline refs. This one has the bookslist in the refs section, plus a note re Britannica as source - but it needs an inline ref here and there in the main text, saying which bits come from which source. But I think this article is less at risk from tagging? Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately the only thing I did in that article was add the military details about the 76th Regiment! The rest was already there:) Richard Harvey (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Wellington's Regiment

Eek it's huge. If you look at the history page, it says the article page is 79,124 bytes, whereas I think? the Wiki max for a page is around 40,000? I forget where that rule is written up, but it's in the Wiki labyrinth somewhere. So it's probably better if I leave the article alone for the moment, in case the page needs to be split up again first. Sorry about that - I hope I'm wrong. Let me know when it's sorted, and I'll proofread it. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with a regiment that is over 300 years old! I will have to have a serious think about reducing the Abyssinian (Magdala) and American (Battle of Guilford Courthouse) stuff, but as the DWR article entries are about their involvment rather than others its difficult. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't believe in reducing an article such as the above, which contains so much useful information. Why not create sub-pages? I have not created sub-pages myself, but presumably they work like the sub-pages of a user-page, with a forward-slash. There are Wiki pages on how to do them, and I remember reading that if you head each sub-page clearly with "This is a sub-page of such-and-such article" then it doesn't get deleted on the grounds of notability. You could move a whole load of stuff that way. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sub-pages in article space it has been disabled, only works on talk pages. Keith D (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a look at Talk Long Pages and the list of top 1000 Long Pages the article doesn't even come close to the top 1,000 articles, one alone being over 800,000 bytes. I am therefore inclined to leave it as is. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, then. I understand that Keith D has now done the copyediting for it? I haven't checked - but if I'm needed for anything, please let me know.--Storye book (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been touched by anyone, since I did the merge, so if your ready and willing, with a cuppa to hand; and a day to spare!!! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good old Brighouse again

Brighouse again, hehe. I could just correct the illiteracy of our latest editor, because the content could be useful, as it attempts to inform us about the RC school's history . . . but it's garbled. Was the school built 1900s or 1960s? Or are there two schools?--Storye book (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably done by a student at the school. I've edited it, and corrected the dates, so it's more readable; hopefully! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Richard - I had a giggle when someone else came in and kindly sorted the spelling only . . . thanks for making sense of it. --Storye book (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington info box

Hello. As a peer his legal name is Arthur, Duke of Wellington. It is common practice to only use a person's peerage title in infoboxes (see for example Margaret Thatcher and Alan Sugar). I don't think the person who created "Infobox peer" has any real knowledge of peerage styles and I'm thinking of changing the layout. As the duke is surely known as "The Duke of Wellington", not Arthur Wellesley, this is the style we should use in the infobox. Regards, Tryde (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion all usage of "Wellington", as a single-word name in the main text, should be changed to "the 8th duke". "Wellington" alone always signifies the first duke - mainly because the first duke is not only a household name representing the 1812 hero only, but because the first duke is the only one that the general public has heard of. Therefore "Wellington" on its own could be misleading to the general reader.

I am personally uncomfortable about the idea of changing it to "His Grace" as, although that is the correct formal address, or reference to him when he is present. I think the discomfort comes from the fact that that kind of address is not appropriate to all situations. There is also the problem that some titled people have a more - shall we say - dignified opinion of themselves than others. When approaching VIPs for charity purposes in the 1980s, I would ring their secretaries to get their preferred form of address before sending a letter. The Mayor of Doncaster demanded the longest title of all - two lines of typewriting on A4 paper. The Archbishop of York was happy with "Dear Archbishop". The Queen's lady in waiting mentioned in a TV interview that sometimes Her Majesty gets letters from the public, beginning "Dear Queen" and apparently the Queen loves that, and giggles. Shortly after insisting on his long title, the Mayor and council at Doncaster were done for corruption. Hence my preference for "8th Duke" on the grounds of genuine respect.--Storye book (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Richard, it is problematic. Perhaps it might be helpful to state discreetly on the discussion page that there is actually more than one opinion on the matter? I was watching the Death of Michael Jackson page in its early stages as a highly controversial issue, and the editors did a marvellous job of stating all relevant opinions on the discussion page. Also I admired the way in which they pasted all the large chunks of deleted material immediately onto the discussion page, so that all could see it. The way they worked so efficiently as a team showed Wikipedia at its best as a system, I thought. At least that keeps the public fully informed, while avoiding editing wars.--Storye book (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirklees College

I saw the article was taking a bit of heat on the Wiki Project Yorkshire watchlist so decided to prove them wrong!--Harkey (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dewsbury

Hi. Thanks for the heads up. I agree with your reversion of my changes - I have read the section you cited and see that the problem with this paragraph is not "advertising". I would still recommend rewriting of that paragraph. At the moment it is subjective ("The town centre is starting to see something of a revival..."), prone to becoming quickly dated ("is starting to see..."), has some strange formatting (use of bold), contains extraneous material (on the brownfield site (which could be moved into the industrial history section). I would make these changes myself, but would not like it to appear that I have not taken your reversion seriously.Jimjamjak (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brighouse again

For your delectation a deep quandary. A non-registered person has kindly contributed a much-needed explanation of how to pronounce Brighouse. However this well-intentioned editor has never been to Brighouse, where in my experience it is pronounced Briggers or Briggus, among other pronunciations that the likes of Kentish people such as myself become unable to learn or hear after the age of two (so the linguists tell me). What to do? Who knows - perhaps the locals really do hear the sound that they make as Brig-house. No I'm not taking the mick. I'm a foreigner for whom a pronunciation guide might be wholly appropriate.--Storye book (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Its probably in good faith, and done in BBC language, but as you say it's wrong! Its actually pronounced as spelt 'Brighouse; but with a silent 'h' sort of Brig-awse, with an 'a' as in 'cat'.

Glad you were able to sort it, then. I don't even try to pronounce local Yorks names properly; it's impossible. The natives are very understanding . . . Happy Xmas, by the way. --Storye book (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with Navbox problem?

Happy new year! Sorry to be asking about this one - the people who used to answer queries all seem to have stopped contributing since November - so I'm looking for someone who can help. I have added a navbox to the bottom of the page that I edit Leonid Mikhailovich Kharitonov, but I can't get the image to work. Any idea why? Please ignore this query if you're busy.--Storye book (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy NY to you too. Problem sorted, with extra's, to help with page layout/format errors. Richard Harvey (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that. I've been asked to add a load more similar images down that left hand side of the CD section, and some more in the vinyl section - so what is the rule? Do I just leave out the caption, and use filename|90px only on each one? And presumably I can put a whole load of images next to the one you corrected, and they'll all come out on the left? I guess I'll experiment and see what happens. Thanks so much for your kind help.--Storye book (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Use 'imageleft' as one word. No captions and only one image per group, otherwise the first image is overwritten by the following one. You only need a small image/icon so although you did that one at 90px you may find 50px is more suitable, to increase the width of the text box to the right, as you have a larger image further up the page in the Discography section. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard - thank you again for your kind explanation. If you think it's OK, I'll keep the navbox image at 90px, as its larger twin in the article had been just dumped there for our team to see until the one in the navbox was repaired (I'll delete it in a minute). We have the artist himself (now retired) watching this article with great pleasure, so I guess he'll want the pictures as large as we can dare make them, within WP guidelines. I've now been given more pictures to put in the navbox - but you say we're limited to one per group. What if I assign a group to each album, so as to be able to use all the pictures? But maybe if I do that, WP would prefer that I make the images smaller? I'll have to think about that.--Storye book (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should work with each CD as a seperate group, though at that point 50px icons would be better as the navbox will become a tad long! Also consider creating a photo gallery, to display the CD covers in the Discography section. I can do that for you if you don't know how. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info - I'll see what the 50px icons look like - I take your point. I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to put the CD covers in a gallery, because they have a fancy loophole licence with if and buts attached. I'll have to have another look at the rules for that one. It took me ages to spot that licence and its potential, hence the sudden influx of CD cover photos . . .--Storye book (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bother. Sorry I'm back again - any chance you could take another quick look at the navbox on Leonid Mikhailovich Kharitonov? I hope I've put all the images in as per correct coding, but every time I put in a new image, only the last one shows in the navbox. I'm beginning to suspect that the system only allows one picture per navbox?? I've made the images tiny as you suggested, and also I've expanded the size of each group to make space for the pictures down the left side.--Storye book (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the template is designed to only allow one image, that is centered in the left hand column. I've modified the template coding and moved the images into the list line to allow the 50px icon to display on the right. I tried it on the left, but it breaks the text after the end of the first line to display below the images, which does not look good. Will that suffice? Richard Harvey (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Super duper, thank you so much. I had been struggling in my sandbox with nested child navbox thingies (one image per box) and you can imagine the chaos - then I checked the original page and saw you'd worked the magic. Now I definitely owe you one. I can offer photography or research for Wiki, if you like?--Storye book (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		Awarded to Richard Harvey for magical modifications in navbox templatesStorye book (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Now I'm officially embarrased. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kingsgate shopping centre entrance, Huddersfield.jpg

You mean this one on Huddersfield page? Yes I agree, in that the page already has some lovely images, so it doesn't need a little blurry one as well. But I wonder whether there's a way to deal with it without disaffecting a well-meaning contributor? Somewhere in the past I've seen a template attached to an image in Commons, saying it was blurry and encouraging editors to replace it with a focussed picture. If we could find that template, maybe we could attach it to the above Commons file, then perhaps we could tactfully remove it from the Huddersfield page with a note in the summary box to say it's removed in the hope of getting a non-blurred one, or something. Not sure how to put that tactfully, but that's how I've seen it done in the past. I support the removal, anyway. Has this editor taken any decent images that we can be encouraging about? --Storye book (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Richard Harvey, I'm in agreement with your analysis of this situation. After answering you previously, I looked at that editor's Commons talkpage and Commons contribs, and came to the same sort of conclusion. People have tried politely to help and advise in the past, but that photographer appears not to have grown from the experience - just my opinion. I guess it takes all sorts. In conclusion, I don't think that the Huddersfield page will lose by the deletion of the blurry Kingsgate picture, especially as it already has plenty of excellent images.--Storye book (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted.--Storye book (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military navboxes

Hi Richard - I'm definitely not asking you to do anything, but off the top of your head, can you remember if there is a navbox (one of those that go at the bottom of the page) with an overview list of all the battles that the English or UK military have been involved in? I've been dealing with Westgate, Canterbury (English Civil War to WW2) and my home regiment Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment) (all battles from C16). Yes I've been through all the military navboxes list and then all the navboxes lists and given up. The nearest I could find were those three English history lists, divided into decades. If no such thing as a wars/battles list exists, maybe there's a way of creating a brief overview, and I could try that.--Storye book (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been travelling around southern Spain for the past three weeks. I'm not aware of a specific navbox, as per your idea, however its a pretty huge task to list every individual battle that the UK has been involved in. I have seen a book in my local Library listing battles, in chronological order, that British forces were involved in. It made my eyes water just copying the ones British Foot regiments were involved in during the Wars of the Austrian and Spanish succession's. Have you seen List of battles (alphabetical) and Military history of the United Kingdom? Richard Harvey (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I take your point. Better forget that one, I think. Thanks for kindly sending the links, anyway. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guilford Court House

No worries on the image. Thanks for letting me know. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]