User talk:Winklethorpe

Hello Winklethorpe, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.   Happy editing! -- Morphh ^(talk) 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Getting Started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Comunity Portal Getting Help Help pages Where to ask a question New contributors' help page Cheatsheet Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution

FA Review

Thank you for taking the time to review the FairTax article. I'll get to work on trying to address these issues. Thanks again. Morphh ^(talk) 0:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to address all the points you brought up. Thanks again for the review. I've submitted it for FAC. Vote on it if you have a chance. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 19:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Excellent work on Business rates!!

I award this Barnstar to Winklethorpe for excellent work on Business rates. —Morphh 2007-03-23

Hi

Thanks for the welcome! I actually became interested in this wikiproject while drafting two articles. Now that I'm here, I'm in heaven. I'll probably survey several of the articles before I start amending any. Since I'm new I'm cautious even though I should be bold as many people here on wikipedia advise. EECavazos 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review. I just got back from London, so I'll need a couple of days to get reacquainted with Boston before performing any further work.EECavazos 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. London and St. Albans wasn't so bad because as each day wore on the sun broke through.EECavazos 04:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of Business rates

I just noticed your peer review request. Not sure how I missed it but I'll get to reviewing. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 0:14, 05 May 2007 (UTC)

I started but it's getting late for me. I'll try to pick it back up tomorrow. Morphh ^(talk) 3:34, 05 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding my peer review comments to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Taxation/Peer_review/Business_rates. I add as I review so you'll probably see more pop up. We should consider submitting the article to WP:GA once the peer review is done and you've made any changes you feel were appropriate. Morphh ^(talk) 0:19, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been following the corporation tax FAR and I think you've been doing a great job. Sorry I haven't been of more help, as articles improve toward FA quality, my usefullness gets less and less - particularly when we're addressing prose. Tony is a tough person to satisfy in this regard. We need to find a really good copyeditor that knows taxation. I've read through this article before and thought it was good but I'll try to do it again with intent purpose of improving prose. I don't think it should be removed from FA. IMO, you've improved it enough to maintain the status. Morphh ^(talk) 11:40, 05 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up on Merriam-Webster and they do have this as "chiefly British". Transitive verb: 2a. chiefly British : to offer or grant for rent or lease. Intransitive verb: 1. chiefly British : to become rented or leased. Use whatever works best for the readers - I just wanted to let you know that it was a new one for me. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 2:35, 08 May 2007 (UTC)

Tax

I'll try to keep at it. One paragraph down... Marskell 20:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Corporation Tax FAR

This has quietly turned into a two month review and I don't know what to do with it. If you are still committed to it, I will continue to copyedit. Much, I must say, I find confusing, but that may be the nature of the beast. Let us know on the FAR how you feel. Marskell 09:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on FAR. In short, still committed, but running out of things I can do, as the prose issues are beyond me. The confusion of it stems, as you said, from its nature. It's a patchwork hybrid of a tax, formed from necessity, pragmatism, and political whim. Just like all the other taxes in the UK. One day I will bring business rates to FAC, and that'll really bake your noodle. Winklethorpe (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on this article - Great Job!!!! Morphh ^(talk) 22:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Winkle...

...has more synonyms than any word in the English language, which makes everyday conversation fraught. Even "Hey Johnson!" or "Where's Willy?" can be problematic.

Glad I could help with the tax article. Marskell 09:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain v United Kingdom

Regarding that edit to Business rates, actually the article about Great Britain refers to the island, but the article about United Kingdom covers the sovereign state. When I'm disambiguating "Britain," I usually try to determine if the context it political or natural and act accordingly. Thus, if an article refers to a species of frog "found throughout Britain," I normally pipe that to "Great Britain;" but if it mentions a law "adopted by Britain in 1973," I pipe that to "UK." Not that I mind your edit, I just wanted to let you know how I was thinking. --Steven J. Anderson 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal History FAC

Thanks for your comments over at Talk:History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) - it took me a little longer than I thought to find the reference for some of the claims but I think I have made edits, or made a counterpoint, satisfying all your points in the discussion now. Could you give the article another look-over and see how it shapes up now? Thanks. Qwghlm 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and all the close reading you have done - you did a great job reviewing the article. If and when the other history goes through Peer Review (not planning to for some time!) I'll be sure to give you a heads-up. Qwghlm 10:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Fowler

I completely understand, and thank you for all the work that you've been putting into the review. As I'm sure you've seen, many of the editors who are working on the article are relatively new to Wikipedia, or at least the FA process. By your detailed comments and back-and-forth (and good humor in dealing with the occasional crankiness from some of our younger editors), you've been an important part of their learning process. I am sorry that we weren't able to get your full support on the FA nom, but, I definitely don't hold the "Oppose" against you. In my opinion, when I see an FA nom that has nothing but a bunch of supports and no requests for changes, what that usually tells me is that not enough people were looking at the article. ;) If everybody is agreeing, then my antennae usually start waving, telling me that something must be really wrong, heh. So a couple of opposes are a good thing, to clearly illuminate just where the weaknesses are. And, as you've seen, it's not just about the Pauline Fowler article -- this FA process is helping all the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders get a good feel for Wikipedia's style guidelines, and then this knowledge will carry over to all the other EastEnders articles. I'm confident that you sticking to your oppose, will make a memorable impact on the EE editors as they continue working on other articles, and those articles will become even stronger as a result.  :) So, thanks! --Elonka 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceawlin of Wessex

You mentioned a couple of days ago that you wouldn't mind taking a look at articles I'd worked on, with an eye to copyediting and in particular cleaning up my tendency to over-qualify the reliability of the sources. If you're still interested, would you mind having a glance at Ceawlin of Wessex? I've put it up for GA, and I think it can get through there, but I'd like to go for FA after that and I'd really appreciate your careful eye on it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

I'm involved in a discussion on the Flat tax article regarding the lead and the proper definition of a flat tax. My knowledge on flat taxes is limited so if you have a chance perhaps you could review the discussion and the lead and comment. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 12:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Template

I noticed you've been out for a bit. Hope all is going well. I was wondering if you were finished with the UK template. It looked pretty good to me but it never got implemented. I was going to create the template and apply it but I wanted to check with you first to see if there was anything else that need be done. Morphh ^(talk) 19:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the template Template:UKtaxation and have started applying it to the articles. I figured if there is anything else, people will tweak it - Be bold as they say.... Thanks for creating it and hope to see you back online soon. Morphh ^(talk) 20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about the computer problems. Yes a disambig would be fine for the business rates. If Business rates in England and Wales is going to by the most likely destination for readers, you could also choose to redirect Business rates to the England and Wales article and then add a {{otheruses4}} tag for the Scotland article. Morphh ^(talk) 13:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FairTax

I need your help. The FA article FairTax has charged as being POV for not having a criticism section, although this is against Wikipedia policy if it can be woven into the article like we have done. No specific details as to what is POV has been presented for correction by they have applied a POV tag and seem to want to nominate it for FAR (claiming the FAC was BS). Please take some time to assist in keeping this article under control. Like our tax protester articles, we tend to get a lot of visitors to this controversal topic and I'm the only main tax editor that watches it. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 0:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 UEFA Champions League Final

Hi, thanks for your review, the only problem with it is the WP:DASH thing I'm not sure what the problem is, if you could specify it, that would be an immense help thanks NapHit 11:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, replied at Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 UEFA Champions League Final. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes

Have undertaken the changes you have suggested, and warmly extend an invitation for you to re-review the article as regards its FA status.--Bulleid Pacific 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on FAC page. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, thanks for your help in the "Main article nominations" page. I am kinda new, and don't really understand the page (s) you've mentioned.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 01:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

Replied on your talk page. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FA noms

All right, thank you again for your help. I have decided to do all of that on a later time until I know what to do because I am still a little confused.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

replied on talk page J.Winklethorpe ^talk 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, I will definitely let you know when I know this site well enough :)

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

FACs

I didn't notice that there was a restriction. I decided to put the four linked articles ie Romanesque Architecture, Gothic Architecture, Renaissance Architecture and Italian Renaissance painting all up together, and then was persuaded to put the monographs up as well. I am probably one of the (if not the) most prolific Fine Art contributors on Wkipedia at the present, not in terms of number of edits, but in terms of number of actual researched and written words. These articles have taken a year to write. (along with a great number more that are not of as major importance). Since I'm one of the few people who is prepared to tackle generic art and architecture stuff, I thought it was time I got it seriously looked at. At least five of the articles are of the highest priority level.

I suppose one of the points I am trying to make is that if all 9 were to get through in a few weeks, and equal someone else's score of FAC's, well, then the rewards would simply be commensurate to my effort over a year. I can assure you I will not be putting up another group af highly significant, long, time-consuming articles next week!

I ddn't mean to tread on anybody's toes, but now they are there, I feel disinclined to withdraw them. We all need a little beauty in our lives! Amandajm 08:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karmichael Hunt FAC

I have responded to your queries, you may want to look at the some of the things Not Done, but thanks for your review. I am going on wikibreak now, will be back in a week. Feel free to respond to my responses of your queries, and/or add more queries. Thanks again.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied on FAC page J.Winklethorpe ^talk 10:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes

Hi, Winklepicker! Would you mind taking another look? I've reworded this and that. Also Go and look at the Sistine Chapel ceiling talkpage and see what some smart person inserted in the article.....! Amandajm 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me! I'll take a look. Re Leonardo, I reallly have done a lot more work on that article.

Amandajm 06:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Rob-B-Hood

OK, let's answer your comments one by one.

• When it comes to the structure of the film, I believe that it should follow a logical order of production -> plot -> release -> reception. Since a film always starts in the production stages. When the audience have seen it entirely, they'd know the plot. Following the first screening, the film would be released everywhere around the world, and what's left is to listen to what reviewers have to say (reception). Hence such an article structure.
• The reason why the article is so "Chan-centric", is because, well, the Chinese media tend to idolize Jackie Chan. Whenever a film involving him is made, the press would swarm over him, and even the lesser actors would be asked about how they feel about him. Also, Chan plays a significant role in production besides being an actor. He co-wrote the script, his production company found the cast and he is the stunt director. Anyway, you do make a point, and I'll attempt to find interviews of the cast that don't involve JC.
• Per your comments, the paragraph has been removed, and the Stunt Work section has been merged with the Filming section.
• The casting section refers to how the stars are picked for the film, and their experience, and what they said in interviews and such. The cast section gives more detailed descriptions of the characters in the film. I've renamed that section as "Characters" to avoid confusion.

In short, I'm following the format of a previous article I made which became a FA (Kung Fu Hustle), whose format is based on Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Cheers.--Alasdair 10:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Winko!

Thanks for all your good suggestions. I reworked the Jonah section a bit and incorporated some of my comment, to better explain it, and changed the bit that you pointed out as inappropriate. Hope you like it better! Amandajm 07:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you...

Thanks for your kind message left on my talk page. I am in university at the moment, so future edits will be intermittent until christmas, but I intend to start the process again on the Merchant Navy Class at some point, in order to compliment the WC/BB article. Once again, thank you, --Bulleid Pacific 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blyth, Northumberland FAC

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review Blyth, Northumberland, your help and support is very much appreciated, thank you. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment

I left a follow up comment on the Brookings Institute on my talk. Since it had been awhile, I thought I would leave a note on your talk. Morphh ^(talk) 15:00, 09 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Fowler

Hiya, just curious, have you had a chance to re-review Pauline Fowler? Things seem to have somewhat stalled at the FA nom, and I'm wondering if it's because we need a few more people to indicate a clear "support." If you do still have any concerns, please let me know? Thanks, --Elonka 01:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SR Merchant Navy Class FAC

Hello. I am wondering whether you would wish to consider reviewing the above article for the nomination. I am asking as you raised some good points regarding the nomination of the SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes article. It would be of great help if I could get further feedback from an outside perspective. Thank you, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedit request

On 4 May 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on United Kingdom corporation tax. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedit request

On 29 May 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Shen Kuo. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, very thnx to you for your article about Business Rates, i'm polish student and i'm writing my master thesis about it, as there is a few or rather there is not any information in this subject around internet, i wonder if u could help me, get some more information, i need all kinda of publications or whatever;)i'll be very grateful, thnx again Maggie vel Maloraiza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maloraiza (talk • contribs) 07:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Great work on Business Rates - most enjoyable reading.80.189.35.14 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]