User talk:Senra/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For sticking your head out like you did! Bjelleklang - talk 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ONS district population statistics

The best place to discuss the stats is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin?

Are you an admin?--EatIcecream2 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) no (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ha ha. You beat me. I was going to say nope! --Senra (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

While it is indubitably always useful to help a noob...

... I really don't understand why you encouraged that person on the Help Desk to think that how many twitterers follow a C-list celebrity constitutes encylopedic content. Could you please explicate your reasoning? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well. In this case, I did my own search prior to posting and was unable to find any reliable sources stating how many Twitter followers Kirsty Strain's has. The likelihood is low, therefore, that this new editor will be able to add reliably sourced Twitter follower information to the Kirsty Strain article. Nevertheless, the editor should be encouraged to try, otherwise how else will they learn? All new editors need to be encouraged to add material content. This editor is no exception. Incidentally, I find the word noob offensive --Senra (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to give offense; nor to insult a category of editors who are to be cherished, not disparaged. Nonetheless: I disagree with the idea that "number of Twitter followers of X as of date Y" could be encylopedic content except in the most incomprehensibly unforseeable of circumstances. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No offence taken. I accept your premise that unsourced Twitter follower numbers are trivia. I have explained why I felt it appropriate in this instance. I will take more care in future --Senra (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Roy Chaplin

--Jonathan Chaplin (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC) No need to sign at the top :)

Draft Article - Jon Chaplin/Roy Chaplin

Re your offer to 'help me' move the draft to its final place, this would be very welcome. But first I have further material that might enhance the article, namely -

1. images of both Roy Chaplin and Hawker aircraft -
2. a sound clip of Roy being interviewed by the BBC in 1982 -
3. A video clip of Roy being interviewed by Central TV in 1982 ----

Items 2 and 3 are in preparation and will not be available until next week. Please let me know what you think --Jonathan Chaplin (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Refactored the above in this edit as it was posted in the wrong place. In addition, I added links and used numbered-list --Senra (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Great news Jonathan. Images would be superb but we need to be sure of the copyright status and I am not an expert. Copyright is a complex area. You can ask a question at our copyright noticeboard. Tell them all you know about the image(s) and they will advise. I need to read up about sound and video clips. As far as I recall, short segments can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Leave this one with me --Senra (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have looked into the copyright of your media

1. Images: If you or a photographer you know took the photographs, you or your photographer can donate the images to Wikipedia or better still our sister project Wikimedia Commons by uploading the images via uploading images to Wikipedia or contributing work to Wikimedia Commons respectively. Otherwise, someone else owns the copyright and you cannot upload such images without the copyright holders express permission
2. Sound clip: The BBC owns the copyright of their own broadcasts; even for recordings made by you. In this case, ask the BBC if they have a link to an online version of the clip. We can then link to the clip from the article. If the BBC doesn't have the clip any more, offer it to BBC archives. They may be pleased to receive it. Ask them if they would publish it online
3. Video clip: Same as the sound clip but in this case, Central TV no longer exists but ITN archives may be able to assist

There will be no reliability problems (in the Wikipedia sense) with the BBC nor Central TV interviews, providing your recordings are from their respective public broadcasts. The contents of the recordings can be accessed—presumably by you—and parts can be paraphrased (not closely of course) or directly quoted into the article. You would also add a citation (using perhaps {{cite interview}}) to the source. Whilst our verifiability policy makes it clear that it should be possible for all readers of the encyclopaedia to verify cited sources, the policy allows for the possibility that not everyone can access all sources. That would be the case here. In short, feel free to add transcribed contents from these sources into the article. Note that your own un-broadcasted personal sound or video recordings are not, in the Wikipedia sense, reliable sources.

Let me know when you have read this please --Senra (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Senra

All read above. The images are all over 50 years old and photos by Hawkers or Hawker staff (by Camm actually) but have no company stamps on my prints. I understand that copyright expires at 50 years.Ill ask about the 1982 sound and video clips.

Thanks. --86.133.180.140 (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)--86.133.180.140 (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Senra

Sorry about not being logged in last time and the untidy double signature.

You asked earlier about Dad as an AFRAeS being elected FRAeS. I would be pretty sure that this process is private to the RAeS and not accessible, even if archived. It may be that only an AFRAeS can become a FRAeS. I never got further than Graduate membership myself.

--Jonathan Chaplin (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have raised the issue of copyright of your photographs at the copyright noticeboard. You can find the discussion here --Senra (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Our UK copyright question has been answered. According to editor George Ho (talk · contribs) "photos by Camm are still copyrighted for life + 70 years" and thus do not expire "until the end of 2016 2036". If your father took any of the photos, they can be released by you under one of the creative Commons licenses. Other photos can be similarly released by their copyright holders, such as your fathers colleagues or surviving family --Senra (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I was wrong about the year. It's not 2016; it's 2036. I counted the math incorrectly. --George Ho (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• He he. Not a problem. Happens to us all. I re-factored your quote in my response above to cover it --Senra (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ryantbo

Hope you can get through to him; I seem unable to penetrate his armor of self-righteousness. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

We will see. Wikipedia has a very large number of policies and guidelines. Frankly some of the guidelines, at least, conflict within themselves. It is not surprising new users have difficulty understanding them all. I hope he/she isn't blocked because I see some reasonable content being added --Senra (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I prefer to ask COIs not to edit the page[1] Even as a PR person, I get irritated at having to repeatedly clean up after them, seeing them disrupt my editing or when they argue with me. But mostly every interaction I've had from Talk has been very pleasant for both parties and usually results in improvements. I prefer to make my own COI contributions this way as well.[2] Anything COI contributed could - at the very least - use a second pair of eyes before article-space anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

New editors

Senra, I'm going to be coaching a PR editor EdWalker58 through improvements to Chartered Institute of Marketing as training wheels of sorts. I noticed somewhere that you were active in Help. If you identify any PR editors willing to make a commitment, I have a debt of sorts to those that have helped me to help others and I think I've gotten half-decent enough at coaching companies through it to help pass on my knowledge sort of speak. CorporateM (Talk) 01:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That is, regarding PR editors that would likely make repeat submissions and would be interested in coaching, as oppose to a specific one-off situation. CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course. If I come across any, I will pass them your way.

My own outlook towards new editors was expressed in a three-week Village Pump (policy) discussion I initiated over two-years ago. That discussion centred on editors who patrol new-pages, but the sentiment can be applied to any help- or reference-desk responders too. If you look at some new-editor talk-pages, such as the recent User talk:Ryantbo and User talk:Amyloidfnd, Wikipedia (in good faith) has treated them badly. We don't, in general, welcome new-editors. We tend to impersonally quote rules then slap a cease-and-desist notice on their talk pages, without trying to see such editors own frustrations. Another example. When I saw this initial response (made in good faith) to a brand-new editor I tried to be more positive. That editor has since contributed Roy Chaplin which was recently nominated for a DYK.

I do understand how irritated an experienced editor might feel at repeatedly having to answer the same queries; this is clear in the brevity of their responses. We must, nevertheless, remember that new-editors are potential customers of Wikipedia and that it is the duty of experienced editors to provide an excellent customer service; even when such customers appear to be rude! I admit that my own recent responses, such as here and here, could be more succinct. I am sure I will get better with practice.

--Senra (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well said. COI compounds the problem, because good-faith and bad-faith COIs often have similar editing behaviors and it's impossible to tell the difference. I see some editors being very polite and welcoming late last year to an editor where I have real-world knowledge they have bad intentions to undermine Wikipedia for their benefit. Meanwhile, Ed was treated rudely and I just helped give him some perspective and I could see him becoming a productive participant.

The AGF/ABF line is blurry too, because a lot of PRs don't want to do any harm to Wikipedia, but they do want a better article, but corporate approval cycles make it difficult to add neutral content and include contentious materials. A lot of people presume that where I have a COI, that I wrote the content in a completely independent capacity, but my role is more of coaxing the company into being as neutral as they can be and guiding them through the process.

I prefer to abandon rule-based arguments entirely and focus on what's best for the reader; that is the basis for all rules anyway (I would hope). CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for your intervention. I don't work on Wikipedia every day, but I will come back to the review. It's past midnight where I am so I'd better leave it for now. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your query

In reply to your query, no, I am not receiving any recompense whatsoever. My involvement and interest is due to having founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar way back in 2007 at the same time as Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain - long before Gibraltarpedia (with which WikiProject Gibraltar has no connection) had ever been conceived. Unfortunately WikiProject Gibraltar, which has never been the subject of controversy in the past or for that matter now, has become collateral damage in the dispute over Gibraltarpedia. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough --Senra (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's very frustrating that issues I've had absolutely no involvement with have resulted in "my" WikiProject being hit by the controversy over a completely separate project. Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Andrew O'flynn

Please userfy the deleted article Bernard Andrew O'flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to User:Thorp12/Bernard Andrew O'flynn in anticipation that Thorp12 (talk · contribs) will accept my assistance as I suggested on their talk-page --Senra (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As requested, userfied at User:Thorp12/Bernard Andrew O'flynn Worm^TT(talk) 11:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you --Senra (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Senra for offering to help this new editor. Lova Falk talk 12:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Senra. I see Thorpe has blanked the page. I'll hold off for now, but if he does not edit further for a few hours, I'll re-delete it. I (or any other admin) can always undelete it again in future. Worm^TT(talk) 10:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I am on the case. If Thorp12 (talk · contribs) does not start communicating within the next day then sure, un-userfy. But in the meantime, I suspect he/she is angry so please give me time --Senra (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I'm watching too :-) I hope the cookies help someone get over their anger at least a little bit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm in no rush, I'll look into it again tomorrow. Good luck. Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought but does anyone else think that finding and blanking that user-page was rather sophisticated for an editor with only four previous edits? --Senra (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It was clear from your talk page - which is easy to find - and from his watchlist, which he may have found. My partner is just starting editing and she would have been able to find and blank a page in that manner, I'm sure. I don't find anything suspicious in the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 10:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the page. Don't feel disheartened, you did your best and I can't see anything you could have done better. Good luck for the future. Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

UTC)

no worries. I'm not disheartened. Thank you for your continued interest. It is heartening! --Senra (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Roy Chaplin

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick favor?

Hi Senra. I've been patrolling for Wikipedia articles that mention the word "industry-leading." It is generally understood among marketing circles that this is a prolific marketing-fluff word, so I feel the phrase is a good indicator of spam, as oppose to good-faith/accidental promotion.

Afilias popped up, but since I provided consulting to the Public Interest Regsitry[3] to improve their article on a COI basis, I'm not comfortable trimming the article and was wondering if you would be willing to do a quick cleanup. CorporateM (Talk) 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I found it very promotional in tone and have tagged it accordingly --Senra (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't check back on this until now. I would have just trimmed it up a bit, but I at least took off the "lead may not summarize" tag, because this is true of most our articles.

I've been doing keyword searches on promotional words like "industry-leading" and it digs up a lot of five-year-old spam. Puts things in perspective when you look at the level of scrutiny of a disclosed COI, versus the completely unsourced, promotion that fills the ranks of many of our company pages ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 01:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Undiscovered Scotland

Saw your pass on Symbister. Please reconsider as it is one of the leading websites on Scottish topics.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at the WP:RSN --Senra (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I consider it down to the DYK nominator(s) to convince the DYK reviewer(s) of their compliance with DYK rules (in this case WP:RS from the Article within policy rule). As a courtesy, I have raised the issue at WP:RSN myself --Senra (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced with a book source, I always prefer book sources anyway but I'm pretty sure that website is used as a source by many articles and considered a reliable and indeed valuable source on here for Scottish topics, I've addressed it the WP:Scotland.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be so. In the specific context of that hook for your DYK, and in my opinion, that web site failed WP:RS. That was because the web site did not clearly disclose its sources. The fact that other articles rely on that same source is a matter for context within those other articles --Senra (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Blind guess

I just thought I'd mention Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Golden Rule buyout in fiction since your answer to the previous question came up in the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I have responded --Senra (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced material reversion

{{help me}} - helped by PinkAmpersand (talk · contribs) at IRC --Senra (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please help remove unsourced material not cited to reliable sources from Witchford and in edits here and here recently. I would do it myself but I don't seem to be able to rollback more than one edit --Senra (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• And also RAF Witchford by the same IP (212.219.116.68 (talk · contribs)) and for the same reason --Senra (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Senra. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! INeverCry 19:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ely riots

I've begun a review at Ely and Littleport riots of 1816, which looks very good to me so far. You can see my comments on the review page. Thanks for your work on this valuable topic. -- 17:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this review. I will attempt to expediently address any concerns you raise --Senra (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

On Hyderabad

Oh yes, of course you should go ahead with the edits. In case of any questions/comments, we'dd discuss in the talk page.Thanks a lot for your sustained interest. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Per my request, I may be able to start tomorrow --Senra (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now added the polo, parade, race course info in the Sports section, based on the information you provided. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Any interesting things you cam across?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm off to the library again Saturday --Senra (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

RAF Witchford

Good Afternoon

I thought you might want to see this.

Gavbadger (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am now not sure what to do here. You may be aware that I dropped a note to the IP here. That IP (212.219.116.68 (talk · contribs)) added archaeological information to Witchford, RAF Witchford and Haddenham, Cambridgeshire on Friday and after my removal, again today—this time, better sourced but much of which is hard to WP:VERIFY. In the case of Haddenham and Witchford I feel the recently added information is WP:UNDUE. I need to think about all this --Senra (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For the RAF article it looks like it has been taken out of a report of some sort because i have seen the style before on other articles on Wikipedia within referenced pdf's. Gavbadger (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Witchford and RAF Witchford reverted here and here; Haddenham cleaned-up here and here --Senra (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant, now all we have to do is wait to see if they enter into a discussion or not. Gavbadger (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Probably not, if my Friday reverts followed by their re-instatement today without discussion is anything to go by. Incidentally, I found the Haddenham additions poorly written and sourced but useful nevertheless; especially the Starfish site stuff --Senra (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• They have re added the text to Witchford and RAF Witchford. It turns out to be an A-Level school report. I have left a message and raised this with Drmies --Senra (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• It could have been worse--like a B-level report. Check out this definition of elegy (I just gave a midterm): "stories that are told about someone being put to a test. These stories tells if a character has the will, strength, and mindset to past the test." Drmies (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• He he. We learn from each other (and in this case, unlearn from others too!). I had never heard of elegy until today but it sounded like a lament of some sort; perhaps it is you who is being tested? By the way, A-level is a contraction of GCE Advanced Level, roughly equivalent (I think) to a High school diploma --Senra (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Ely and Littleport riots of 1816 to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on your fourth GA! CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Proactiv Solution

Hi Senra. You had previously commented on a first draft I had prepared of this article back in April. I've circled back (very belatedly) with a second draft based in part on yours and SmartSE's feedback here and I thought you might like to know in case you were interested in commenting. CorporateM (Talk) 04:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Beowulf

Hey Senra, thanks. I don't know what I did wrong: I was trying to copy the format from The Man in the Moone (that article is so good it's ridiculous--someone ought to give the writers a raise), and slowly do all the references that way. When I have the time to do them all (the next week or so--I'm teaching the poem and want our article to look good/better) I might call in your help again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Mantle

The see also and ref looked like so many WP:MOS issues in one, have changed it into the text, a good catch btw, there seems nothing much about the hypothesis on wp despite being a 30 year old hypothesis - hopefully somebody will get around to doing a good art about it. cheers sats 13:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Senra. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Senra! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Senra. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)