User talk:Bleaney/Archive 2008

Archive 2005Archive 2006Archive 2007Archive 2008Archive 2009Archive 2010→Archive 2015

Hello!

Don't worry, most wikipedians start off on rocky paths. Keep on going, and don't give up! They only block you if you vandilise other people's articles. Good luck with your wikipedian carear!

Yours Sincerely, Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Photographs in the Wikimedia Commons

Hi, I notice you've been doing a lot of stuff on Bedford related pages, which is great. You do seem to be using only pictures found on the Wikipedia to illustrate these. However the Wikimedia Commons, the storehouse of media for Wiki projects, has a category commons:Category:Bedford (England) with loads more images all ready to use. And new pictures keep getting added. I hope this helps. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bedford College

Hey Bleaney, thanks for the help, I've added a bit of information to the page and I'll keep putting stuff up as I get it. You saved me a hell of a lot of work doing the disambiguation page for Bedford College, top work! Jlumsden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abbey Middle School

An editor has nominated Abbey Middle School, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbey Middle School and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:


Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Middle School

I have replied on my talk page, where we should keep the conversation. TerriersFan (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources

I see that you have done further good work on Cauldwell. It would be helpful if you formatted the references. Firstly, presentationally it looks better and secondly it aids the reader in deciding if its a source they want to follow up. There are two ways of doing. There is the lazy way I used in Abbey Middle School (I get bored with hard work :-) ). Then there is the proper way using citeweb. Guidance on this can be found at WP:CITE or copy the format from Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a particularly well sourced page. TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AfghanStar

Thank you for creating AfghanStar! Nicely done. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Middle School

I know that you are sore that this page was not kept but removing the material doesn't help. I gave you significant help and made suggestions as to sourced material that you could have (but you did not) added such as the special measures saga. The way forward is to develop the article in the locality and, when it has sufficient additional sources, it can be recreated. TerriersFan (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

B4U

It's best to link the term B4U to the Dance Dance Revolution article, B4U is primarily known as a DDR song. The disambiguation link is there to allow people to find the articles that you created about the two companies with the term B4U in their title. Is someone simply searches for B4U they will be led to the most common result first and be able to go to the other articles from there. Otherwise searching for B4U movies or music will take them straight to the correct articles.

It's good that you created the pages, otherwise I would have never known about the companies myself, however there are far less notable and certainly aren't the first things that come to someone's mind when you say B4U. Please leave the pages as they are. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, popularity is not the same as notability. Regardless of how well you know something it's about the broad view. Of course everything links to the disambig now, you changed the links. And I think it's funny that you argued B4U the song not being an article when the information in the 4thMix article about B4U is as large as your stubs (And I haven't gotten around to overhauling that one yet). I'll leave it as is cause I'm pretty sure you'd go to war over this, but it'll be called into question again at a later time. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
WOW! Nobody wins anything. The Wikipedia policy on saying how important something is; is to show people, not just sit there and say 'This is important'. They call it peacock terms, and I tend to agree. It's not enough to say that something is more important than something else, the article needs to reflect it. I could sit here and say your TV channels are confined to a single country. DDR is a worldwide game and B4U is one of the most synonymous songs with the series. It's been remixed several times by established artists and fans alike, been featured in dozens of games in the series and heard by multiple millions of players in a vast majority of the civilized world. The song has even been in other video games due to its popularity. So what? If I can't find notable references to back those facts up then as far as Wikipedia and its community cares B4U is just a piece of music from a video game. So don't tell me how much more important these stations are than a song, show me. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
And yet none of those articles linked simply to B4U, they link to the precise articles. The exact term "B4U" still only applies to the song on Wikipedia. The number of articles your idea of B4U appears in is not relevant to the term's notability or importance anyways. If you think I'm holding a double-standard then you really need to pay attention to what I'm writing, here's a quote from the text right above; "the information in the 4thMix article about B4U is as large as your stubs (And I haven't gotten around to overhauling that one yet).". Meaning I intend to fix the obvious problems... Interestingly, your stubs have only as many references as the 4thMix article. If someone is looking for the TV stations they'll search for the full name. If they decide to use a blanket term that's already in use by something else they'll be taken there, and oh look, still have access to related articles with B4U in the title. That's how it's suppose to work but I'll leave it as is, as I said before... for now. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently a discussion about B4U at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests (see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#B4U_article_conflicts_and_disambiguation). --BelovedFreak 10:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to hold off on this until later, but since you brought it up... B4U is not the name of the company currently occupying the namespace. According to the references you provided it goes by a number of different names, "B4U" simply being a shortened version of those names. Probably to be all inclusive to the subsidiaries (i.e. saying Nintendo to be inclusive of all its branches). Since you probably read what I said on the Editors assistance board I won't repeat myself, but the bottom line is the article needs to be moved to a more appropriate title. If you don't wish to move it I will simply use my best judgment since I was unable to get anyone to actually offer an opinion on how to fix this, they did however agree that the disambiguation page was the way to go and in light of the parent company's article I can agree to that.

I'll let you put things where they need to go if you want to, if nothing happens in the next few days I'll do it myself. Also, I'm restoring the notability templates on B4U Music and B4U Movies because simply linking to the channel's websites doesn't prove notability or provide much of a reference. Do not remove them until the stubs are adequately referenced. Also, I don't know if your sig is messed up or not but your post to my talk page had nothing but a "talk" link. If you did that on purpose I would suggest putting your username somewhere in the sig so that people can more easily see who's talking to them. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you please use the preview button before you click save? You made an unbreaking string of text on my talk page.
B4U is a shortened title, no matter how popular the shortened version is it is still the shortened version. DDR is the shortened version of Dance Dance Revolution, DDR is used everywhere by everyone, it's in a million references but... The correct article title is Dance Dance Revolution. I'm aware of what the two on the EA page said, and despite not answering the questions I posed they merely offered suggestions. Their words were not binding, nor final. And since they responded after the request had been archived nothing really got settled (And the first responder even posted the request as "Stale", meaning that nothing was resolved). There's nothing to argue about this, if you read the Manual of Style on article titles it will tell you to use the full name of a company. The only question I had was what the full name of the company really is. You might know, but if you don't help out as I said before I'm going to have to guess based on the references. If I'm wrong the article can be moved to a more accurate title later, no biggie, but I can conclude that the full name is not "B4U". If my doing this is enough to make you request intervention then I can't stop you, but when an admin sees that I'm simply doing things the way they ought to be done they're not going to be able to do anything to your liking. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

B4U (network)

Upon closer examination of the Manual of Style the article space "B4U" has been disambiguated as of now. When I finish the song's article the disambiguation will stay (also per the MOS). I hope this is the last of this debacle, and believe me when I say that I mean nothing against you by these moves, but the guidelines are very clear on this and if I see the disambiguations reversed I will treat it as vandalism.

I'm still at a loss as to what to really call the B4U network so I simply made a general subtitle B4U (network). You guys who do the bollywood articles can figure it out from there or just leave it as is I don't have enough expertise to say either way. If you still disagree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines it would be best to take it up with the community on one of the many discussion pages meant for those kinds of disagreements. If you have a question specifically for me feel free to ask, I'm always glad to help fledgling editors. Cheers. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Long Close School

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Long Close School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. triwbe (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have removed this template at this edit, with the summary "removal of deletion tag - School is now a secondary school offering GCSE courses and so is automatically notable according to wiki guidelines". This seeems to me to be mistaken, because:
  1. Even if Wikipedia:Notability (schools) did say that, it is now marked as a "failed proposal... one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion." The relevant policy is WP:N.
  2. The draft policy did not say that "a secondary school offering GCSE courses... is automatically notable". It said under Indicators of probable notability: "In general... senior secondary schools are considered notable. 'Senior secondary schools' exclude middle schools and schools that do not educate to at least grade 9/age 15. They include high schools in the US and grammar schools and comprehensive schools in Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK, for example. These schools are considered notable by virtue of such factors as notable alumni, community importance, notable athletic and scholastic successes. The amount of information from reliable secondary sources customarily available for such schools — based on news coverage of sports and academic awards, relative size, and importance to the community and region — are usually sufficient for verifiability."
Perhaps this school may be notable, but I agree with what triwbe has said in the notice you removed, it does not show notabilty at the moment. Xn4 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the message. I didnt mean to act hastily. As you say in the wikipedia guidelines under Indicators of probable notability: "In general... senior secondary schools are considered notable. 'Senior secondary schools' exclude middle schools and schools that do not educate to at least grade 9/age 15". Long Close School now educates children to age 16. It is the only independent school in the Slough Unitary authority to offer secondary education to age 16. I admit the article needs to be expanded which is why it is marked as a Stub, but i thought that these facts alone meant that the school can be deemed notable? Sorry again if ive done wrong but triwbe did state that i was free to edit the deletion tag o the article, but maybe my reasons on the edit were not clear enough? Bleaney (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear. As I said on your Talk page, Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is now marked as a "failed proposal". It is not "the wikipedia guidelines", and the policy to look at is Wikipedia:Notability. Even if Wikipedia:Notability (schools) hadn't failed, I'm afraid you're quoting it selectively! Even the draft of it went on "...These schools are considered notable by virtue of such factors as notable alumni, community importance, notable athletic and scholastic successes. The amount of information from reliable secondary sources customarily available for such schools — based on news coverage of sports and academic awards, relative size, and importance to the community and region — are [sic] usually sufficient for verifiability." Notice "usually". So it would be appreciated if you could try to establish some notability in this article - and, indeed, in others you've started. Regards, Xn4 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Association of Governing Bodies of Independent Schools

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Association of Governing Bodies of Independent Schools, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.agbis.org.uk/history.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of B4U Movies

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article B4U Movies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Castle Pinckney

Hello, I removed the defunct prison category from Castle Pinckney. It was never a prison per se but for a couple of months it was a very temporary camp as they shifted the Union troops elsewhere that arrived from Manassas. More explicitly, they lacked the ability to care for prisoners on Castle Pinckney which is why they sent them elsewhere...they couldn't run it as a prison. Thanks,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I found where the Union used it as their own after the war and supposedly executed Union soldiers and buried them on the island. I have self-reverted...sorry for the confusion (mine). Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Total time as a Confederate prison camp was from Sept. 18, 1860 – Oct. 31, 1860..afterwards, prisoners were transferred to Charleston city jail for the next 6 weeks until they could find somewhere else to place them.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. I've noticed some of your excellent work on prisons and was wondering if you'd like to join Wikipedia:Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities. We are a recently created wikiproject dedicated to creating and improving articles dealing with prisons and detention facilities and we are in need of new members. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We're still in the process of starting up. I think a few of our goals should be to complete the lists of prisons (many countries do not have any list at all) to get an idea of how large this project could possibly get. I've made a few proposals on the talk page. If you have any suggestions that would be great!--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your many category deletions

Hi. I notice that you are making a large number of edits to articles, deleting categories. I assume you have some plan, but the lack of any edit summaries leaves me unable to figure out what it is. Could you please start adding summaries to your edits so other people will know why you are doing what you're doing? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Before I figured out you were doing something methodical, I undid one of your edits. You might want to put it back. Also, don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages; it makes it easier for people to reply. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Davids' Island (New York), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. This is the same article where RoySmith reverted your category deletion. The category looks entirely appropriate to me; please explain. --Orlady (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining on my talk page. I removed the category link from the article.
I have my preferences set to prompt me for an edit summary when I forget to add one. (That's "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" under "Editing.") It's often annoying, but the prompt helps me remember to try to communicate what I'm doing. --Orlady (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Very nice article!

Hello! I was doing New Page Patrol and I came across your new Chelmsford (HM Prison) article. I just wanted to commend you on that fine article -- thank you for bringing it online! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Castle Rushen. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Manxruler (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

re:Editing

I wouldn't exactly say that I've "saved every edit". As you might have noticed I've carried out a massive amount of work on the article in question over an extended period of time today and thus a number of edits have been called for as I have had the time to do research. With edit summaries and all in place I don't really see the problem. Manxruler (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have been researching the article for quite a while, and the number of edits isn't that large. With edit summaries it's not all that hard to see what I've done. With an expansion from 4,397 to 20,769 bytes one can end up with a few edits. Still don't see the big issue here. Manxruler (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Within 24 minutes soon enough? The Bald One White cat 21:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No probs. It was best to have the links on a seperate page anyway, I'm not a fan of too much clutter at the top especially on a completely unrelated article on Bedford in our United Kingdom! Take care The Bald One White cat 21:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Willoughby, Warwickshire

I've lived within 5 miles of Onley for 30 years & am fairly sure that the 3 prisons are within the parish of Barby, Northamptonshire, not Willoughby. The county boundary as shown on the Philip's Navigator Britain map (2007) appears to confirm this. NinetyCharacters (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 2005Archive 2006Archive 2007Archive 2008Archive 2009Archive 2010→Archive 2015