Kbthompson
Ossultone Hundred
KB, if you check original sources, you will find that Harringay and Hornsey were used interchangeably. In referring to the manor, the normal appelation was Harringay or Harringhay. The Hornsey version came later, Can you not live with this being represented on the Hundreds page? It is verifiable through ancient documents rather than 19th century history books.
Your comment on the Miidlesex page suggests that you deleted harringay because it was not a historic parish. You are right in that it was never a parish. But you are wrong because hundreds were never based on parishes. They predated them. See the Wiki page on "hundred" for easy reference on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjuk (talk • contribs)
- In 'Ossulstone Hundred', A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 6: Friern Barnet, Finchley, Hornsey with Highgate (1980), pp. 1-5, Hornsey rates a mention, but no form of Harringay. Generally, the Victoria County History is regarded as the definitive account of the history of London, because the project is the most heavily peer reviewed historical publication. In respect of the manor of Harringay, I would think (but don't know!) that this is probably a sub-manor of Hornsey. Since the ancient documents aren't to hand, I'd probably go with the Victoria History. There are two criteria on writing history on wikipedia: the first is verifiability (WP:VER) (of which there are many arguments) and the second is no original research (WP:NOR).
- Also, you've been editing Haringay and the boro' page - no argument with that, some of it is a definite improvement and I'm glad to see someone having a go at it. I would urge you to look at other writings on settlements in London to a). try to keep to much the same style, b}. endeavour to reference your work in the same style as them, c). not quote websites verbatim, and d). write prose, rather than disconnected sections - it looks like notes at the moment. If you need to experiment, or work something out, then please use your Sandbox - with Wiki you're publishing immediately and that should be at least partially complete. Use the Sign your username button to sign your comments. And if there's anyway I can help, pls feel free to ask. Good luck
Unity Theatre
KB, I was really pleased to see someone had made Unity Theatre, London a proper entry of its own - it deserves it (especially on a wiki projects - after all it was "Theatre by the people for the people". I've just made a few edits to it. I've got an amount of info on this subject. Besides Colin Chambers' invalueable book I've got various theatre programmes and other odds and ends, so can try and look bits up if there's more we want to add on it. Skekayuk 10:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the shared interest, and thanks for the additions and corrections - I think the Robeson snippet came from the theatre museum site, or the unity theatre site that's referenced. There's nothing to say they're right - particularly if you have the programmes for the performances. It would be great to add more, but we have to avoid the dread original research!
- You may also be interested in the Theatre Workshop (a 'professional' company), but one who grew out the Unity Theatre movement and whose ethos still informs the Theatre Royal Stratford East's community work.
- Left theatre often gets ignored, mainly because it gathers together a few talented people for a while, who then drift off to earn money. Before Edward Bond, Steven Berkoff and the like were premièring at the National they premièred all their work at the Half Moon Theatre in Stepney - now a major pub!
- There's a lot of theatre history missing here, because ultimately, it is a populist project. That can be both a strength and a weakness. Kbthompson 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I couldn't resist ... Half Moon Theatre. Kbthompson 10:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Menier Chocolate Factory?
for your Theatres in London Template? -- Peripatetic 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Probably; but needs a wiki-article first, seats 190 ... Some of these things come and go faster than we can change them, but then some turn into the next Almeida theatre. Not obvious from their website who's behind them, if it's publicly funded I think it could quickly go to the wall - remembering a £2m (public money) Half Moon theatre that is now a large pub!
- I have no 'ownership' of templates, merely that they help people get around things they might not otherwise find - that turns out to be a bit of a curate's egg. Cheers Kbthompson 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Does have an article I think - Menier Chocolate Factory - and important in the current scenario since they were the ones to first stage Little Shop of Horrors. --Peripatetic 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article needs work, and heavy editing to highlight that the spoof was, a well, spoof ... Little Shop wasn't a first, it was a revival - was it a London première? I'll get around to it when I can, but in the meantime, feel free. All the best. Kbthompson 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey, I performed my first-ever merger at George Formby and came here to thank you for your support. --Futurano 11:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Where it makes sense, it makes sense. I'm glad you enjoyed the process. Maybe we should start a new category:Champion clogdancers of England .... take care. Kbthompson 12:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies also for insertion under Stock Photography. SarahEMBH
Marie Lloyd
Kb, there is a play on BBC4 about Marie Lloyd, on Wednesday, if you are interested...Colin4C 10:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ta for that, I shall set the box up to watch it for me ... eventually I'll run out of disk space and actually have to watch television. Kbthompson 10:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
georgemelly.com
Where did you get the information that this is the artist's official website? Obiskobilob 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, read it, it's put up by his music management company (Jack L Higgins). I admit it contains sales information, but since it's the official site, I'd let that slide. I'm as anxious as you to prevent WP:SPAM, but in this case, I would argue for its appropriateness. Kbthompson 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I have read the site and can find nothing on it to indicate that it is George Melly's official site. Indeed Tomandlu who is GM's son states on the Talk:George Melly page that he does not believe it is officially endorsed. Jack L Higgins has a site [1] but it does not seem to have been updated with respect to GM since 2004. Can you provide a reliable source for your information about [2] georgemelly.com? Obiskobilob 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
La Strada, etc.
Thanks for your La Strada edits. Weigh in on the discussion here if you care to. IMO, we don't need everyone to say "play nice", we need someone to really look at the problem and see the extent and seriousness of it. It is a systematic destruction of information on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I got caught up trying to find references to Lionel Bart's involvement in Unity Theatre, London but came up zilch, so twiddled with some omissions I found on the way. On the other matter, I'll take a look-see, but as always will make my own mind up. Kbthompson 15:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree about the RfC. Can you start the process? I can add my examples/experience to it, and so would SandyGeorgia. The more editors review this, the better. -- Ssilvers 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to give him a chance to reply first - hopefully agree, it's not a hanging. Editing is a balancing process, but I do think he errs on the side of brevity and some of his edits have been disruptive. He is so prolific that his changes affect a wide swathe of articles. Kbthompson 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Unity Theatre
I added some info. Feel free to trim out anything you think is unnecessary. I think the article could be even clearer that the Unity theatre was presenting works that were quite different from the mainstream works of the day, that only the Unity theatre did this, and how the movement spread throughout Britain (anywhere else)? I know there was something like it in the U.S.) The movement was a key artistic and political outlet for working people during WW II.... Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ta for that. I was interested in it, in that it was a movement that the Theatre Workshop leapt from, Joan Littlewood is my personal heroine, in that she first got me involved in the theatre by inviting a young lad to climb amongst the lights (literally, I was 40 before I stood in front of them).
- As for the history of left theatre in the US, they're worse than Stalin when it comes to airbrushing communists and such like out of history. Brecht is fine, as long as it remains a financial transaction, as soon as it involves rational thought, or heaven forbid dissent then hold the horses ... (not that communists are the be all and end all, merely that people should exercise some kinda choice). Anyway, it's nearly the witching hour, so toodle-pip! Kbthompson 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Marylebone
Hi, Marylebone is not a borough but is very much a specific area of London famous in history which many famous people, places and organizations have been associated with. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- No arguments with its historical importance, merely does it deserve an entire category separate from Westminster? I think this verges on an obsession, when will you be demanding independence? 8^) Kbthompson 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, its not obsessive at all and I don't see why smaller parts of London can't have their own categories. Note the Marylebone category is not even in the London borough category anyway. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I shall most definitely sleep on it. Kbthompson 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, its not obsessive at all and I don't see why smaller parts of London can't have their own categories. Note the Marylebone category is not even in the London borough category anyway. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Image:1600 Aldgate.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1600 Aldgate.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- This was sorted too ... now archive! Kbthompson 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Image:1755 Stow Shoreditch.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1755 Stow Shoreditch.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, good to have more information about the author and that, of course confirms the copyright status. However, the image still needs a source - i.e. where the digital image came from - a scan from a book, a website etc. Sorry to be a pain. Madmedea 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I can probably match it to several websites, but this scan came from an academic source. I've faced complications with modern images, but I never thought I'd face problems with 400 year old artwork. Kbthompson 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you scanned it, just put that! Yes, I know I'm being a pedant - but I've come to think an image without a source is like a fact without a reference - no way of checking it out. Thanks for being understanding. Madmedea 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Burlington Bertie
Am shocked to discover that there is absolutely nothing about Burlington Bertie (who rose at 10.30) in the wikipedia. He was from Bow, I believe, and was possibly a transvestite. That's about all I know...Colin4C 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Have you tried Champagne Charlie? A strange way to cut heroin, I know ... Kbthompson 00:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Burlington Bertie by William Hargreaves, husband of Ella Shields. - or was it Harry B Norris? Kbthompson 00:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
jewellery→jewelry
Thank you (CmdrObot) for introducing spelling mistakes into British-English articles, as you did to Chelsea, London. I would hope this could be stopped before it goes to far. The Irish spelling is the same, CmdrO'bot. Thanks Kbthompson 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies for that. I've (a) updated my bot so that it doesn't make that miscorrection any more, and (b) added it to my list of national spelling variants so my bot will warn me if I accidentally try to add it to its corrections rules again and (c) am going to have a look over the last few days of edits to see if I made any other miscorrections like that.
- However, I feel a comment is in order here: you might like to consider being less sarcastic in matters like this in future. I don't see how it can achieve anything other than to get people's backs up, and make them less inclined to listen to your (entirely legitimate in this case) criticism.
- Cheers, CmdrObot 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- ... and I replied with apologies for any misunderstanding at your bot page .... Kbthompson 10:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clean up
Someday I'll get the hang of this Default sorting thing. Thanks for taking care of it on so many of the articles I catted. What's new in KB world? In mine, someone put the Gilbert and Sullivan article, as well as the Malcolm Sargent article up for GA review. Feel like commenting on those? Be well, -- Ssilvers 02:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers SS. Whenever I go in for one of these AWB sessions, I always dread receiving a message - it usually indicates I messed up! So, it's pleasant to hear from you. I apologise for lighting up your watchlist. I wrote a brief article the other day, began looking at some of the people linked with that theatre - tidied up a bit of too obvious plagiarism and then found that the entire cat:English dramatists and playwrights was in a bit of a mess, so started going through them with the AWB tool - looking for obvious blunders, omissions (not yours of course) and things that can tidied up - like the defaultsort (the tool does most of that for you, so is worth using. The annoying thing is when someone made a mistake with the name in one entry, then it makes you do the whole list manually). Trouble is, I think I'm still only half way through.
- I'm off shortly to the West End, but will have lunch with an old friend, who has genuine talent, but scrapes a living as a professional musician (with no pension plan! - so I'm glad I didn't go that way). I probably won't get around to looking at those articles today (or indeed finishing the AWB edits). Generally been neglecting wiki this month - got too much on in real life. Kbthompson 08:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Lunch got can'd, which is just as well. Had a look at both articles and seems difficult to see they'd fail GA. I think they're both on the way to FA. Kbthompson 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing. My sense is that they're GA. Of course, I would value any specific improvements you can suggest. I think, if I understand the process, that you can promote them to GA now, since you did not edit them. Oh, BTW, got some new info in St. George's Hall. Please take a look. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's see if anyone completely independent takes a look and makes comments. While I've been through GA on East End, I'm not sure I feel totally competent to review. I don't see a reason why they shouldn't pass - at the moment. I'd like to submit some more articles to the process before doing a review on my own. Kbthompson 13:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ilford
I've copied the conversation to Talk:Ilford and replied there. This account seems to have been set up for a single purpose and I notice almost every edit by that account has been reverted by a wide range of editors. MRSC • Talk 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doncha just luv it. Much the same thing happened with the late lamented East Canonbury. Everybody wants to live somewhere else, and if they can't move houses, they'll move its political ___location. Maybe I show too much patience, but (above) I've been accused of not showing enough.
- I think I'm going to move history - since its essentially administrative and try to find something historical to say about Ilford - although with only 60 dwellings there in 1650, that might be difficult. Kbthompson 13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if anyone has written anything good about the effect of postal geography on perceptions of ___location... MRSC • Talk 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- ROFL-bomp ... I seriously doubt it, then it again, it's no worse than the historic county debate ... I'm interested in history, but even I don't go for them. Which silly uniform turned up at the council's AGM. Kbthompson 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I remember getting seriously big-headed about residing in SW1. Is that good enough? Or should I send my cranial measurements? Colin4C 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- ... see a doctor! I used to live in 10025, but I'm much better now. Which reminds me. I once had to go to pick up my post in NYC. They had a timed ticket system. I knew it was going to take a while, so I turned up soon after 9am. The ticket said that my estimated wait to service time was 3.5 hours; some little old ladies confirmed this to be the case. I went off, did stuff and came back after lunch in good time to be called for my appointment. (I used to renew my driving licence in Poughkeepsie, in order to avoid the queues in Manhattan). Kbthompson 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- ROFL-bomp ... I seriously doubt it, then it again, it's no worse than the historic county debate ... I'm interested in history, but even I don't go for them. Which silly uniform turned up at the council's AGM. Kbthompson 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if anyone has written anything good about the effect of postal geography on perceptions of ___location... MRSC • Talk 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Greenwich
Thanks for having a go at the history section- those histories are public ___domain due to their age, I don't suggest we should copy the whole thing though as they're vast! Also we need to find other sources for 1800-present day, Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers for noticing the omission, it's an important article - and many more minor places have quite extensive history sections. I generally ravage BritHistory for important tidbits, rephrase - the copyright is by no means clear, as the digital version was published between 2002-present - they've now begun putting copyright notices on their maps (which is a bugger, 'cos they're generally good!). I think the more recent history can actually be dealt with through the 'objects' that remain - as you say, there's a lot of of them. Kbthompson 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi I don't think there's any doubt the text is public ___domain (I believe the same applies to 1911 Britannica, the Jewish encyclopedia etc.). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Postcodes
In this vein, I have a plan for dealing with these stubs. See Talk:London postal district. Your input would be appreciated. MRSC • Talk 06:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that, particularly after the entrenched attitudes you faced on the last occasion. It seems a good way forward and a good compromise. Kbthompson 11:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- re Talk:London postal district - I give up! MRSC • Talk 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is difficult to see why someone would want a collection of one-line stubs. If I could understand it, it might be possible to talk them out of it - but it's not just the stubbornness of one person. Kbthompson 08:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't understand how the one-liners are preferred to articles such as SE postcode area. I thought this way forward offerred real compromise and a chance for improvement. I see now that some editors have no desire to do any work to the articles, but at the same time are not prepared to let go. MRSC • Talk 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- It beats me! The wiki ideal is a sort of practical Maoism (Let a thousand flowers bloom), their solution to the problem was to shoot a few and re-educate the rest - so, perhaps best not go there! I think of article development as moving it in the direction of 'some ideal notion of quality'; the reality of wiki is you push in one direction and five push in the opposite. If you don't develop a healthy sense of live and let live, it will quickly drive you mad. Sometimes you get a chance to do something which gives a few people satisfaction, other times you just have to watch it all fall apart. Move on. Kbthompson 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- My faith is restored. Runcorn and his army of sockpuppets have been blocked. Horah. MRSC • Talk 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- It beats me! The wiki ideal is a sort of practical Maoism (Let a thousand flowers bloom), their solution to the problem was to shoot a few and re-educate the rest - so, perhaps best not go there! I think of article development as moving it in the direction of 'some ideal notion of quality'; the reality of wiki is you push in one direction and five push in the opposite. If you don't develop a healthy sense of live and let live, it will quickly drive you mad. Sometimes you get a chance to do something which gives a few people satisfaction, other times you just have to watch it all fall apart. Move on. Kbthompson 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't understand how the one-liners are preferred to articles such as SE postcode area. I thought this way forward offerred real compromise and a chance for improvement. I see now that some editors have no desire to do any work to the articles, but at the same time are not prepared to let go. MRSC • Talk 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is difficult to see why someone would want a collection of one-line stubs. If I could understand it, it might be possible to talk them out of it - but it's not just the stubbornness of one person. Kbthompson 08:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- re Talk:London postal district - I give up! MRSC • Talk 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Theatre articles again
Hello, Kb.
Today, someone changed several headings in theatre articles so that the capitalisation does not conform to MOS. I changed it back to lower case and commented at Victoria Palace Theatre, but a different(?) anonymous user changed it back to upper. Do you want to do anything about it? I think this is a case of "[they] mean well, but [they] don't know!"(name that quote) Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good morning. If I have some time today - and can persuade my ISP to work properly - I'll do a quick run thru. Busy recently, trying to add refs to history pages and persuade people to some consistency in articles. Revisited the New London - added some past history. I noticed an anon-ISP but they seemed to be running through adding details of productions, so I wasn't too worried - they probably need knocking back a bit, removal of peacock words and other copyeds. Meanwhile, in real life, the cat herding has all gone awfully wrong and they're all wandering off in different directions. You'd expect intelligent people to be a little self directed and task orientated ... but they all agree to one thing and then discover they have their own agenda. A bit like wiki, really. Kbthompson 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I spent most of this morning going through them, on a general clearup - by the time I'd finished, he'd done some more! Left a welcome message, and directed to WP:MoS. Plus ca change Kbthompson 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You're on fire! You're an editorial fool! You da bomb! But asking people for consistency in articles? Go for it, Don Quixote! -- Ssilvers 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I hope those are good things ... Any point in putting Vaudeville Theatre for GA status? I'd like to see what the process makes of a 'shorter' article. Most of the one's that go for GA, try for the 16-ounce steak approach, maybe it isn't necessary. Kbthompson 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No, all bad! BTW, the answer is Dick Deadeye in H.M.S. Pinafore, Act I. Vaudeville?:
I don't think it's quite ready: It looks nice, but it is under-referenced; what was the theatre's main fare in the early days, aside from the few productions named? Comedy? Shakespeare? What happened from 1875 to 1889? The Dare sisters desperately need articles. They are both super notable. Only one production is mentioned between 1930 and 1955. That's a big gap! The period from 1970 to 1996 is a bit spare - only a few productions noted, even though there must be good records for this period. If we could fill in some of these gaps.... BTW, what do you think of the new list of 'recent productions'? Most of them are very short runs. Were the plays notable for any reason? It seems sort of a random reason to add a list unless it shows something significant about the recent era. Were these plays of a similar kind? Did the theatre management seek this sort of play? These are my thoughts. Together with three quid, they will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. -- Ssilvers 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Where I live is a Starbux free zone (there literally are none, must be the last place on earth). My coffee is all supplied from the Algerian Coffee House in Soho, Colombian Medellin Excelsior. Reminds me, time for a trip to France to get my cheese ... Although they just issued the list of road closures for the 2012 Olympics construction - so, it looks like I ain't going nowhere for five years!
- The list is rather too complete, but now you're beginning to sound like your nemesis. I don't know the who, why or what; but it certainly was a rush of changes, and although the format errors, pretty close to the required format. It's your sockpuppet and you're just creating work for me! Point taken about Vaudeville, but we're getting close. Time for dinner! Kbthompson 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Camden
Came to your site to see what you're up to in respect of the comments made at the Camden site in particular .re corruption and public housing. Is it OK to use this sort of language on Wikipedia and express such very "personal views"? I think it would be better if you remove the "s" word altogether, which many people would find offensive.
82.69.55.81 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I respectfully asked for PoV comments at that page to be justified. I don't know what you're on about - and this is the correct place for any messages; the correct place for debate is on that talk page. Kbthompson 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, With regards to the camden article: I agree that the article needs cleanup, that any material which shows PoV and would not be expected in an encyclopedia should be removed. I also agree with some of the edits made to do this. However the reason I reverted some of the changes is as some of the deleted sections (mainly with regards to parking) did not need to be deleted. Somone needs to go through the artcle and remove biographic and PoV material- but not just delete sections outright. 81.107.65.89 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the edits cannot remain in the state they were in. The correct procedure where articles, or parts of articles, contravene wikipedia policy is to just delete them. A libel is a libel, and not taking immediate steps to remove it is compounding the libel. I was actually cutting the guy far too much slack by asking him to verify what he had written and correct the manner in which it was written. Please note: I did not change a single word of it.
- Everyone here is a volunteer, no one is paid. People do what they're interested in, and if it's important enough someone else will come along and write something that does follow the rules. If you try to help someone, and they then rant, rave and start name calling, then it is very unlikely you will be so-minded in the future. The situation is serious enough that it is now in administrator review. Kbthompson 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Bad times in Camden
Easily remedied by having a nice glass of wine, I know I will. MRSC • Talk 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I never drink alone, I'll count that as company. Currently making up the education lists at London Borough of Enfield. Kbthompson 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Bad Weeks in General
You had a bad week, Kb...? Just let you tell me about mine...Actually it's pretty tedious. Seem to have got caught up in one of wikipedia's longest and most boring revert wars, with the same guy I had a spat with on the Jack the Ripper article (let's just dub him 'Nightmare Guy', you probably know who I mean). He seems to be on the wiki 24/7 (locked in his room, having not left the house for the last 20 years, hair down to his knees...talons like finger nails...maybe...) and is currently ignoring a majority of 3 to one against him on the Talk Page of the article in question. Despite this he seems to have convinced himself that he is the ultimate embodiment and enforcer of the wikipedia 'rules', though it seems that he himself personally has got a license to interpret them in any way which suits him and also abrogate them, especially WIP:Civil, on whatever occasion seems necessary to him in pursuit of his power trip: like a combination of 007 and Judge Dredd. Basically he is just trying to grind us down with flummery, obstinacy and bluff. Just waiting for the appearance of an unregistered sock-puppet to make a magical appearance on said page. Anyway, no need for you to get involved...yet...though I might call on your aid if things start getting more than usually traumatic/stupid. Colin4C 10:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- You could always try WP:ANI, WPLondon have had to take two issues to them over the past couple of daze - and it helps for an independent observer to review the situation - calm tempers and slap heads, if necessary. I think the limit was when I was called a liberal (pschheept-ptweeh). Read through what goes on there, state the case dispassionately, and let them make their own minds up. Just take care you don't inflame the miscreant with your forceful personality. Personally, I always think these things could do with an all round cooling off period, but that doesn't seem possible. Well it is wiki .... Kbthompson 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, as always, I heed what you say Kb. If this had been a singular spat, I would have walked away rather than adding anything of my own to the trollo-verse. However, I just get that feeling that even if I did walk away, 'Nightmare Guy' would track down my edit history and become an eternal 'pain in the neck' to me and my descendants whatever I was editing on any article. This is I think what they call 'politics'. Anyway, at the moment the situation is under wraps, as, currently, the famous 'Mermaid from the Baltic Sea' (who seems to be reasonable type of aquatic denizen) is supporting my edits. Colin4C 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:Editor review
Hey, no problem. Even if your signature is plain, its okay. They're just to tell people who you are. Mine messes up the edit pages, its so long. But I'm rather reluctant to let it go, so..heh. Anyway, cheers and have a nice day! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- cheers and thanks again. Kbthompson 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh! What a lovely war
"Oh! What a lovely war" was a music hall song, originally sung my male impersonator Ella Shields. Apparantly Shields was also the original singer of "Burlington Bertie from Bow", though Vesta Tilly seems to have stolen all the credit for that. Even more shocking news I have just discovered is that Julie Andrews (aka Mary Poppins) was also a transvestite and had a gay love affair with Tony Blair. Colin4C 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have no wish to get those pages on my watchlist. I have enough vandals, trolls and even goths. I gave you a Burlington Bertie pic and references above. Where's the article? Kbthompson 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here: Burlington Bertie. Colin4C 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's hardly complete, you've not done Ellie Shields and William Hargreaves - how am I supposed to put my big foot and plaster referenced all over it until you're done? Kbthompson 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here: Burlington Bertie. Colin4C 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)