User talk:Chris j wood/2010

Malvern College

Hi Chris j wood/2010! Malvern College, an article you have edited or contributed to, concerns an important school. It still needs some urgent attention. If you can help, please see Talk:Malvern College#Lead Section regarding how it may be improved. (This is a generic message, if it has been placed on your talk page inadvertantly, please ignore it.)'--Kudpung (talk)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Chris j wood! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 28 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Rob Wilson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Pancras railway station

I have just reviewed the St Pancras station article for which you are one of the top five editors. This article is currently rated as a B class article, but would, with a little work to add a few citations where I have marked, almost certainly pass a Good Article Review if nominated. I have started a discussion at Talk:St_Pancras_railway_station#Good Article - almost. --DavidCane (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: William Macbride Childs

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as William Macbride Childs, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32402, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:William Macbride Childs and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, William Macbride Childs, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:William Macbride Childs with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:William Macbride Childs. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:William Macbride Childs saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Codf1977 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because you participated in this TFD. Some of these have been re-nominated here, where you may wish to comment. Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered question

Sorry I forgot to check back on that TFD. You said: "Now I'm really confused. If attribution is a legal requirement, why does it need to be machine readable (I've not met many robot lawyers)?. And what pray do you mean by a proper attribution statement in the history and why is that machine readable when a template in the text isn't. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)". The attribution "iw-ref template" isn't a standard way of attributing. The proper way to attribution would be in the edit summary which could be harvested. See: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia especially at #Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects. A hyperlink to the revision id translated from in the history is the best way to provide attribution. So any kind of automated process trying to generate an attribution history would not have a chance - whereas it can search the history for such things as "(copied|translated|imported) from (various wikimedia wikis&oldid=12345678)" it won't look in the wikitext. These templates actually leads people into thinking this is sufficient for attribution and in the end, misleads them into not attribute properly. –xeno^talk 01:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect vs. disambig for Axxx pages

Hi. I think you should reconsider what you're doing regarding changing Axxx pages from redirect to disambig, when the 99% obvious meaning was what the redirect catered to. I stumbled on this due to what you did to A380, and that has now been reverted. I'm guessing some of the other ones will also be reverted. See for example the comment on the A380 talk page. --RenniePet (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you might expect, I strongly disagree with the above. I simply don't see why an airliner is the obvious meaning, over and against the other meanings. I don't think the average man in the street would automatically associate (say) A330 or A380 with an aeroplane, and that is essentially the test we should be applying in deciding whether to use this kind of disambiguation on partial names. Note that I'm not saying that they would associate them with roads or ships, that isn't the point. If the typical reaction would just be puzzlement, that is enough to say we should have a dab page rather than a redir to an assumed target.

Incidentally you were wrong (in Talk:A380) in saying that I did similar things to A300. As best I can see, this has been a dab page since August 2008 and the only change I've made to it was to copy edit its syntax. Probably as a consequence of this misdiagnosis, User:Causantin completely botched his/her changes there, and ended up orphaning all the other A300 articles. I've therefore immediately reverted this change to remedy this.

As far as the others (which I did change in the first place), I'm still convinced I'm correct in this. I'm going to consider what my best options are here to get the change made. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize for promoting the "fanboy" comment - that was improper. And I agree that I did not closely examine what you have done with the other Axxx pages, only th A380 one.

But I maintain that the best situation is that when someone searches for Xxxxx, then if 80% or more of those people are looking for "Highway Xxxxx", then Xxxxx should be a redirect, and the article for "Highway Xxxx" should start with the line "This article is about Highway Xxxx. For other uses see Xxxxx (disambiguation)". This is irrespective of whether one usage of Xxxxx "makes more sense" or not - it is simply a popularity contest. --RenniePet (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of London Buses route 66

London Buses route 66, an article you contributed to, is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77. Okip 15:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this page was deleted before I saw this notice, I cannot tell what changes I made and I have no memory of such an edit. I suspect therefore it was probably a dab or redir fix or something similar. For the record, I have no strong views on whether London Bus routes deserve their own articles or not. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give A380 (disambiguation) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

• I'm placing this here late not as a warning as such, but to have all the info and links available to you to read. - BilCat (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. This was a four line dab page, not an article needing attribution. I couldn't move (I did try) because of its history. Don't you think the bureaucracy of the requested moves procedure is just a little OTT here. In any case it has now been reverted (see two sections above). -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Burden

It isn't good practice to add material without sources; I see no point in the addition of material to University of Reading yesterday with your own "fact" tags. Why have you taken this approach? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a merge rather than an addition of original information; albeit rather in arrears, as the original merger didn't do much merging. The original article (and much of the merged information) dated back to 2005 and WP policy on sourcing has evolved much since then. Even though I wrote some of the original article, after that length of time I obviously don't have source information immediately to hand. The original extlink (which I think was also a principal source) is now dead. When I came to use the WayBackMachine to locate an old version, I discovered it was either down or I couldn't reach it. So I put the tags in to remind me to sort it out when I was able. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a helpful explanation. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reisszug and Festungsbahn

Hi, I read you message. Excuse me, it was really a big misunderstanding. I've confused Reisszug with Festungsbahn for this reason: Still now i went 7 times into Salzburg and 3 on the Festung, but i didn't know about the existance of a second funicular. I've supposed that "Reisszug" was the official name instead of "Festungsbahn"; i was also surprised to discover that it opened in 1495, 3 centuries before Stephenson. By now the article avoids confusions, excuse me again for the technical problem. --Dэя-Бøяg 18:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Help us new page patrollers out by asking for the Autopatrolled flag. You can request it here. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While your at it, why don't you request Rollback and Reviewer? -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I've always been quite happy to be a plain editor. I'm happy to contribute to WP as an editor, I've even made the odd financial contribution too. But I've no desire to take on an administration role; I do enough of that in my real world life and I don't get the creativity buzz I get from creating a good article. And I generally try and avoid applying for things. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at autopatrol, I see it is not really an admin right at all. In fact Autopatrolled doesn't say anything about applying for it, but rather implies it should be automatically granted to anybody with anything approaching my edit count. I think I'll just wait for that to happen. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went behind your back and requested autopatrolled for you. All autopatrolled does is automatically patrol pages that you create. As seen on Special:NewPages, all pages that haven't been patrolled are shown in yellow. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroller

Hi Chris j wood, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – B.hotep •talk• 21:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]