User talk:Jamesx12345/Archive 1

Seasonal Breeder

Can you provide the full reference for (Jerram L. Brown. 1978) which you put in to cite your contribution to the article? (Seasonal breeder) Thanks! -- Skingski (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Curious

I see you merged Baby diaper cake to Baby shower which I agree with. However, are you going to transfer over any of the content? - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Baby diaper cake had zilch for sources, so I think the merge is fine. Many of the related articles like Diaper Party and Baby announcement could be merged as well since they seem to exist solely to promote otherwise unheard of customs. The Baby Shower Marketing /Cake Manufacturing lobby will be showing up directly, I'm sure. - CompliantDrone (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be right... A lot don't pass the "Would the Britannica have this?" test.Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Grampian Police Pipe Band

Hello Jamesx12345,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Grampian Police Pipe Band for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 08:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ruo Shui/Ejin River

I've taken the liberty of reverting your merger of the two articles, not because I object to the merger as such, but because you did not actually move over any of the information. Please try again, or discuss at Talk:Ruo Shui if you're having trouble matching up the geographies, since I certainly am... Jpatokal (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think its that Ejin River made more of the multiple tributaries than Ruo Shui - I really don't know.Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Edinburgh

You're welcome. The most critical aspect is referencing, and I suggest that be fixed first as sourcing may require tweaking the prose. I have not checked substance of the references - if they are reliable sources or not though, but will do that later on, when missing refs are in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the improvement is remarkable, however there are still significant shortcomings in terms of referencing. I tagged unsourced claims in the "Early history" subsection for example. Those need references, or may be removed altogether. For instance, the bit about geology and glaciation need not be discussed in the "History" section at all.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Glad you're sharing the frustration I am encountering with this task. I started fine-tuning the factual content of the History section of this article (the only section where I can claim any competence) without being aware of the Review and its demands. I must be honest: I was not impressed by the history content when I first came across it (there were some real clangers), but I'm not convinced that our efforts to reference the article more effectively is leading to a better result for readers, whatever the article's status in the Wikipedia hierarchy. Kim Traynor 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite. I have a feeling most people who come to this article don't really care (to be honest) about specific aspects of the history, so close referencing and precision just makes it less engaging. I claim no expertise except local residence, so am happy to leave that section to you. Something along the lines of "early history", ie the first settlements, a brief skim over the union/ reformation and the contemporary history is most likely enough, with a further developed article at History of Edinburgh.Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies that I've been so tunnel-visioned by working on the article that I haven't addressed the points you raise until now. I agree with what you say about reducing the History section on the Edinburgh page. Since I'm coming at it from a different perspective, i.e. I feel I've been minimalist (except for the Smout quotation), but do agree that most people aren't looking for history, you're probably the better judge as to what to excise and what to retain on that page. I could then fine-tune what remained if any of the original points ended up distorted. I've now transferred the whole History section to the History of Edinburgh page, so you can go ahead and change the Edinburgh page History section at will. Good luck though, because I am up against constant error messages blocking my efforts - I've been trying to transfer over a pic from the H of E page to the Edinburgh page for half an hour now. Kim Traynor 12:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the version at the moment is good - it is easy to "skim" and still get an idea of the growth of the city. The etymology section now looks a bit dense, and could probably do with being pruned. I think I will try and get the council section down - reducing the size by 5k seems to have edits going through second or third time rather than 7th or 8th. Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh-heh, that's progress. You'll see I've pruned a bit more. Let me know if you feel any 'essential' element has been lost. I agree that the etymology section is a bit OTT for a general article and will have a look at that now. I don't know yet if some of its undergrowth can be hacked away without doing violence to the sense of the whole. Kim Traynor 21:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've already taken out an academic debate in the etymology which is undoubtedly relevant to somebody, but a bit more could probably be removed. The Etymology of Edinburgh has at some point been a clean copy-paste, so removing content is fairly straightforward. The history section is nice - the lexicon is a bit more "flowy" than it was, but nothing obvious seems missing. I also removed an especially dull section on how the council works. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a little more, but not as much as I expected I would (because you'd got there before me). Good to see Harris' comment go, because I think he was just being a nationalist (and just because he got into print as an expert on Edinburgh street names, doesn't mean he's an authority on post-Roman Scotland). I realise now that the info on the David I charter duplicates the info on this given in the History section, but I think that's legitimate, because it is dealing with the name's appearance in documents; so I've left that more or less as is. I don't know how much more you intend to do on this article (you could tackle the location of the Pentland Hills which don't skirt the city to the south!), but I intend to bow out gradually as of now. It's been a good collaboration. Kim Traynor 21:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to do now. I'd quite like to see it featured, as it looks good, and is better than some good articles like Scotland, but not sure I have the ability. Your authority on history has been superb - that area of academia is alien to me. The contributors tool gives you 319 edits, which is probably enough that you can have at least some of the credit :). Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No James, not Sciennes! This is an absolutely remarkable historical survival, but more importantly shows the long-standing Jewish presence in Edinburgh. David Daiches, himself an Edinburgh Jew, maintained that Scotland is the only country in Europe that has no history of state persecution of the Jews. I'd therefore like to retain that image partly for its curiosity value, but also to make it obvious to all who see the page that Jews were/are an accepted part of the city's population (there's been a lot of emigration in recent decades). I realise that may leave a bit of a clutter in terms of images, but I'll try to find a remedy for that. Kim Traynor 22:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I think moving it to the left would fix it. I'll let you do that or an edit conflict will ensue. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at the page again, I think it is the pic of St. John's that's the real cuckoo in the nest. It appears already on two other pages where it is more appropriate; and why that particular church and not another? Decoratively speaking, it's a superb photograph, but St. Giles already serves the purpose of supplying an iconic image for the paragraph content. For these reasons, i intend to remove the St. John's image. In the case of the Jewish burial ground, I'm surprised it has lasted so long, as I felt sure that someone would at some stage replace it with the Edinburgh Mosque. I'm glad they haven't because the mosque is not exactly picturesque. Kim Traynor 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that layout looks a bit less crowded, but the broken up text isn't ideal, or the typo. Would amalgamating it ruin it? I'll try that and see if it works Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet at what you're referring to, but I've just removed the tourist brochure-style pic of the piper, again a case of nice decoration, but not illustrating a point in the text like most of the other pics. It already appears on the bagpipes page and I think its placing on the Edinburgh page was clumsy. Do people need to see him on that page? I don't think so. Kim Traynor 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal - between religion and demography, it looks like the work of the tourist board. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What should be done regarding the coat of arms? It is at present a clean copy-paste from [1], but that is a .ac.uk website so it could be changed a bit and sourced from there. It is quite succinct as it is, with all the key information, but if there is any literature covering it then referencing from that would be better. Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Blimey! I see we're at it again. I'm now finding that I get an error message even when changes go through (which I discovered by bringing up the page anew in a separate window). I've taken note of your desire not to overload the page with images but couldn't resist adding the view from Blackford Hill. It hasn't been taken in the best of light, but I'll take another from the same spot to replace it eventually. Hope you approve of the Sports gallery. Although it adds a couple of new photos (I think the ice hockey image is a work of art), I think it takes some clutter out of that section. I'll see if I can track down info on the burgh arms this evening. The Bruce Sexcentenary book is likely to have info to reference its earlier history. Personally, I'm not sure why that info matters to anyone, and wonder if it should be removed altogether. It's not about the city acquiring any kind of burgh status, just a badge! Kim Traynor 12:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The sports gallery is good, but the title should probably be demoted. It's hard to tell where it should go - perhaps at the top? The blackford hill photo is nice, but, as you say, not in the best light. Getting the arms referenced would be ideal. Removing the coat of arms does make a bit of sense, as it is still given in the infobox and the history is not really relevant. I might migrate the content to a new article Jamesx12345 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed, what do you do? Hare up to the top of Blackford Hill and take a new pic in full sunlight. I'm having to recharge the camera battery now before I can download, but expect the new pic to appear later tonight. Meantime, drat it!, the burgh arms section has disappeared. Not that I'm bothered, but I happened to pop into the Central Library to get a reference for it, and found instead an interesting little story attached to it. Turns out that the Lord Lyon started a legal action against the Council in 1732 for not registering their arms with him (involving payment). The case seems to have been dropped, but it was about be revived in 1771 when the Council fought back with the help of a team of lawyers, including James Boswell. Their defence was that all burgh arms predate the Acts of 1592 and 1672 which gave the Lyon his powers to compel the registration of all armorial bearings. They refused to recognise his claim and no action seems to have been taken. At the time the book was written in 1973, forty-eight out of sixty-four burghs still hadn't coughed up! Kim Traynor 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Could that be woven into the history? Coat of arms of Edinburgh will be created in the next few minutes, so a sentence or two in Edinburgh linking to that would be nice. Looking at where it would go, it seems that the act of union is under the 17th century. Is that intentional? Regards. Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Will see what's possible re arms. Snag is that we don't know the story after 1973. I assume the stand-off was never resolved. Thanks for spotting the stranded Union paragraph, left over from the old section heading which covered 1603-1707. Now moved. By the way, I think the page looks better now in terms of overall layout. When one scrolls down, the images seem well spaced out and well balanced between left and right. Kim Traynor 00:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Trickier than I realised. The statement by the Council on the external link is being economic with the truth. No-one knew that the arms had been granted in 1732 until the dispute in 1771 (previous error: Boswell represented the other side). It was that discovery which "settled the matter", though, as I said before, the Council and other burghs did not pay for the privilege. I'll see if I can work this info into the Controversy section. Not sure any of this needs to be mentioned on the Edinburgh page where a link already exists under the depiction of the arms. Maybe one sentence at most in the Governance section. Kim Traynor 01:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. It's an interesting story: either the usual bureaucratic muddle or else the Lyon was trying to save face in 1732 by issuing a Certificate to avoid his powerlessness being exposed publicly to ridicule; and, as regards the Council, another example of how a body that will use the force of the law to fine you or me for parking a car improperly or non-payment of Council tax slithers its way out of paying for things wherever possible! Perhaps the page would benefit from a description of the arms. That seems to have been the original creator's intention, though it was never carried out (and I realise that info can be found via the external links). Kim Traynor 10:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It does sound a bit as if the certificate was perhaps not the original... It would be interesting to know what the magnitude of the non-payment was, if it was worth Lord Lyons time to pursue the obstinate (some things never change) city council. I never knew that they were subject to such artistic interpretation, with all three images showing significant variations - a broad description, and the meanings if they exist, would definitely add to the page. Jamesx12345 (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll pass on that one for now. A page on the Convention of Royal Burghs is long overdue. I started one, currently a draft in my Userspace (User:Kim Traynor/Convention of Royal Burghs), but it requires more before it can go live. I need to get back to that at some point. However, working on Edinburgh has been a worthwhile digression. I hope it makes the grade! Kim Traynor 11:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Joint Dark Energy Mission

was there a reason you've removed the merge tags from Joint Dark Energy Mission as well as from the two respective pages?

{{Merge from|Dark Energy Space Telescope|date=September 2010}}
{{Merge from|Supernova/Acceleration Probe|date=September 2010}}

--Ktotam (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Váli

Letting you know that I have undone your merger of Váli into Váli (son of Loki). There was no discussion of this proposed merger except for my argument against it. I checked both talkpages in case someone posted to the other one. I have appended a note at Talk:Váli (son of Loki) recording my action. It is in any case the wrong way round: of the two, the one not disputed is Váli the son of Óðinn, which is why the Váli article is on him. But I can see no justification for merging articles on two different figures in the existing sources, even if one of them is the product of a 12th/13th-century misunderstanding. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I assumed that they were the same and that one or both articles was confused. You definitely know more about this than me, so I will go by your actions. Thank you for being so vigilant. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Achampet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chintapalli

Daasaradhi Krishnamacharyulu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Razakar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edinburgh GA Review

I expect you'll have read the verdict on this by now. I've no real wish to comment because my only interest is in what the article conveys. For example, I think the intro is absolutely fine, whether or not it summarises the article as desired. I suggest, however, that we move everything we can out of the intro, so that it can be written anew. I think the Festivals paragraph is the next thing to go. It can be merged with the Festivals section lower down the page. Kim Traynor 19:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at other city articles like London, they seem to to quite similar to how it was before. I think the content was perhaps within reason, just too many people writing the lead meant it was a bit verbose. It should probably be along the lines of government/ location, culture, architecture, demographics - missed anything? Summarise in this context probably means to take a fact or two from each section, within reason, but with such a long and varied article that could be horrific. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine that cobbling together an intro by taking a fact or two from each section would produce a good result. I think you're right to identify the points one would expect to see in an intro, and we should stick to those. I've brought back a couple of brief phrases removed from the History section after its severe pruning. While I'm conscious of the need not to over-egg the pudding, it can be argued that Edinburgh's most outstanding quality is its historical character, so I think we can be forgiven for reinstating a detail or two. Kim Traynor 21:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi James. Visiting the page a month or so later, I note many new additions have been made to the slimmed-down intro. All very interesting, but it puts us back to square one in terms of mentioning only essentials. The "seven hills" information should really be in the geography section. It may be an interesting fact for those who live in the city, but I'm not convinced that it's of much interest to outsiders reading the page. Also, the section on schools, universities and colleges is so promotional and self-congratulatory in tone, it looks like it has been added by someone at the Council. Kim Traynor | Talk 17:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. You might like to read some comments I've added to the GA Review section on the Edinburgh article Talkpage. I've just checked the edit history after posting my comments and see that the damage (as I regard it) has been done by one contributor in particular, who I believe has undermined a lot of the good work I thought we'd achieved recently. Kim Traynor | Talk 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jet Scream (Canada's Wonderland)

The article Jet Scream (Canada's Wonderland) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of references to establish notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Astros4477 (Talk) 02:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Engolpion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enchantment and King Childebert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wireless Gate

I've removed the AFD tag you posted at this article, as you did not provide a reason for deleting the article. Given that it's a low traffic article that does not seem to have been touched since 2010, you might consider making it a redirect to Shah Faisal Town instead. There was a proposed merger, but nothing ever happened and there is nothing sourced here to merge anyway. Or have a look at WP:AFDHOWTO and re-nominate this article. Whichever works. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And you seem to have done the same at Recognized Component Mark, where I've also removed the AFD tag. For this one, perhaps a redirect to UL (safety organization) would work? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - about Wireless Gate, it could easily be confused with a wireless gateway or something similar - it seems to be a local nickname. I am afraid my rationale for deleting Recognized Component Mark has gone - I think it might have been to do with notability. Wireless Gate bothers me more. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No no no, It doesn't bother me that you nominated them - just that the nominations didn't go through. You only hit step one, but didn't complete the other two steps (creating a debate and listing it). I found a third, Mindset List, where I also removed the AFD tag. If you give me the rationale, I can complete it for you. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

South west tasmania

The conflation of south west tasmania and south west wilderness is interesting - the text still refers to the wilderness while the new title is south west tasmania - are you aware of the differences?

I have reverted the cut and paste on the basis that south west tasmania is not the same as south west wilderness, and after the cut and paste the whole article was still referring to south west wilderness - they are not synonymous. The articles are in need of editing but not cut and paste. sats 23:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it - if you can point me in the right direction that would help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_West_Tasmania - you have simply created one article where there is a need for two articles - To repeat: The articles are in need of editing but not cut and paste. which is what you have done a second time... are you sure you know what you are doing? sats 23:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Financial inclusion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Credit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El Presidente (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page One Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon explosions

Please refrain from adding "Infobox civilian attack" to this article before the nature of explosions are confirmed. An accident is still a possibility, and Wikipedia need not make the situation worse by becoming a rumor mill. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 19:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edinburgh/GA3

I have reviewed this and judged that it does not currently meet the criteria on three important grounds. I only realised well into the process that having made over 100 edits to the article I should probably not have reviewed. Sorry about that. Nevertheless I would encourage you to work toward improving the article in the areas I have highlighted. I will be happy to help towards that in an way that I can. --John (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)