User talk:Jacklee/Maintenance: 2008 archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Re: Jan Kaplický

The blob "designed" by Kaplicky to take vengeance on Prague constitutes vandalism, but if it gets built (for ten times more than the original price as usual with Kaplicky's "buildings") it's gonna be much harder to remove than an unwanted edit of his bio on wikipedia. I do hope the Knihovno will never be built as does the majority of people who may end up having to see it daily. (For non czech speakers, knihovna means library, hovno means shit.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.100.62.215 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:-) You may well be right, but Wikipedia isn't really the right forum for this. All the best with your anti-Knihovno campaign. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian Paddick

You recently reverted an edit by User:TheGuntz at the above page. He is arguing the toss with me on the talk page of that article, and although yesterday I was willing to engage with him today I don't have the energy to read through his third long rant against me and respond accordingly. Do you mind pitching in with your own reasons for reverting the edit? -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello I have left various talk messages for you which you have not responded to and there are matters st issue on which I would like clarification on. For instance when you state that the "references" for my deleted posting were unsatisfactory can kindly clearly explain what you mean by references. Do I take it that you do NOT mean that my posting was unsourced? --TheGuntz (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Guntz. I've been abroad and just got back today. I'll reply on the Brian Paddick talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
re your above reply ??????????????????????????????????????????????

--TheGuntz (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, am rushing something at work. Will reply as soon as I can, which will probably be at the weekend at the earliest. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

additional to JackLee - I am not sure if you can also consider the following matter as an opmmission from the Paddick artcile - I have posted it on the discussion page but not in the precise form that I would expect that it could be included - I wanted to try to raise discussion about the matter basically at this stage. Information about the matters can be searched furtehr on the web. Thank you. see below.--TheGuntz (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BRIAN PADDICK - MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE - ALEX OWOLADE

At the point in time when Paddick initially contacted the URBAN75 website chatboards more significant than his very brief connversation about anarchism - which he did not initiate but simply responded to casually on the chatboards - was the question of a local Brixton campaign in connection with two other related matters. One was the then relatively recent police killing of a young Brixton black man, Derek Bennett, and the similarly recent sacking from his Lambeth Council employment of Alex Owolade for having criticised Lambeth Police at a public meeting in connection with Bennett's death. Paddick on contacting URBAN75 did so on the "MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE" URBAN75 chatboard thread and the MFJ produced detailed reports and a great deal of other ephemeral literature some of which was highly critical of Paddick. None of this is anywhere reflected in this article - which appears to be a significant shortcoming. --TheGuntz (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

treasure trove

Translated.--Ioscius (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

John Parkinson (botanist)

I'm pretty certain that the image in the infobox is of Gaspard Bauhin. Rotational (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the article's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationality of people from the United Kingdom

I've been getting odd hours recently, and I've spent much of the night on the essay. Hopefully I won't be buggered for the Wales Scotland rugby game. Tell me what you think - it's different in a few respects, yet it's pretty much exactly the same too. You are very polite, and I've removed a lot of the formality - consequently it's possibly a bit shorter. I added a new smaller heading called 'Don't enforce consistency', and put in some examples too (these things always seem to have examples - you can't beat them really). I've added clarity to various corners - it's always better when someone else has a proper go to. It struck me as I was doing it, that part of it is a guide - so I have labelled that section thus.

Two main differences you will notice straight away is that I've removed the 'Issue' section, as it was covered in the intro. I actually rewrote it first, as the opening paragraph it quoted has since changed. Also I've created an Further Information section for the links on Law - they were a bit distracting at the top I felt. Maybe they can be cite-linked. WikiProjects and noticeboards get a new heading too.

In the points section, the last two dealt with birth and death etc - I felt that neither were specific to the UK, and both were more-or-less 'common sense' (or dealt with elsewhere at least - maybe BLP), so I removed them. You can easily drop them back in, though I think a shorter essay is a good thing (and I can see you do to, by the way you structured it). In place I have a paragraph on sport, and some details on consistency in UK and non-UK media. The bit on whimsical examples actually raised a lot of extra issues to me! I took it out as it made my head spin (and again it was not specifically UK). I found another 'formulation' (now 'method'?), and gave an NI example for it.

Obviously, I'd appreciate it if you could over-write any changes. Reverting to various points would be fiddly, as I've made a number of minor changes with each of my larger edits (I hope you will find at least most of it productive!). I'll look at it again with a new head, but I think its an fair bit of WP now. Maybe it can eventually go somewhere else (like one of the places I looked at last Novemeber or so - I still havent gone back and looked!).--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Ben Daniels

Hello, a few days ago I left a review for the article on its talk page regarding its promotion to Good Article status. It is currently on hold, so just let me know when you've taken care of the suggestions and such and I'll give it another look. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 02:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great. Thanks for the message. Will have a look at the article shortly. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Medallion Winners

Hi Jacklee, thanks for creating categories for the cultural medallion winners. I made some suggestions in the main category page, and hope you can look into it. Thanks. Marcuslim (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Paxman

Since you were wondering, the comment marks and indents were used to indicate where refs began and ended. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Why are they needed? They just make the article longer. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
They're not needed; I just inserted them to aid seeing which text was article and which was ref. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Bucentaur

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Fox

If you do pop in, there's a GAN here...not that much, if you have time. Good luck. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DNB

I'm a bit nervous of some of the changes you're making at Edward Wright (mathematician) - in particular, how heavily the article may be going to be leaning on the DNB.

The DNB article is of course very very good. But if we sail too close to it, I worry there's a real danger of WP:COPYVIO. After all, the DNB is an encylopaedia of biography, so arguably it and Wikipedia are in exactly the same marketplace for users. That may seriously colour any fair use analysis of how closely we can reuse DNB material.

That's why, wonderful though the DNB is, I'm very nervous of using it when writing WP articles. If we use it as more than just a check, or at most a subsidiary source, my fear is that that may ethically be quite questionable.

Of course, this doesn't apply to any articles in the 19th century DNB, which would now be out of copyright. But I think the Edward Wright ODNB article is substantially more recent.

Would you identify with my concerns, or am I being over-cautious? Jheald (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet directly. I'd been meaning to work on an article on Edward Wright at some stage, having seen his name pop up in relation to Emery Molyneux, and am glad to see that you've gone ahead to create it.
Your concerns are, of course, justified. To use an entirely-appropriate maritime metaphor, it's not always easy sailing between WP:COPYVIO and ensuring that the best secondary sources are consulted in the preparation of articles. Previously, when trying to get an article up to GA status, I've been advised by reviewers to consult the ODNB. What I've been trying to do is to rephrase the information obtained in ODNB in my own words, and to rearrange it in what I consider to be a more logical progression. Do feel free to rephrase what I've written so far.
The current imbalance in the article due to the reliance on ODNB may also be redressed if references to additional sources are made. For instance, this one that I came across might be worth consulting: http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/wright.html. There may be others. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest exactly the same thing (edit conflict!) - probably better to depend, if possible, more closely on the sources of the DNB article (who aren't in quite such a rivalrous copyright position to us). Parsons and Morris (1939) looks useful [1], at least from the first page.
From Google Books, [2] ch. 4 gives quite a nice summary, and might be worth giving as a whole as quite chatty, relatively introductory further reading. Jheald (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The material in the article on French wikipedia isn't much, but is also worth a look -- I like the loxodrome pic; and the sentences on the 1599 book are quite interesting too. Jheald (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit I've often relied on the ODNB for facts, without of course repeating anything from it, but in doing so I've found out for myself how well-deserved its reputation is for being riddled (unlike the DNB) with minor errors. Use it with that caution, too! Xn4 22:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Great improvements to the article, very good!
A couple more links, that I thought were interesting
  • [3] One page bio from an 1815 'Philosophical and Mathematical Biographical Dictionary', including a full translation of the Latin tribute written for him in the Caius College annals in 1615.
  • [4], pp 24-32. From a book on scientific graphics written by a visiting professor at VU Brussels and KU Leuven. Mostly based on Parsons & Morris, but contains a nice pair of tables of the accuracy of Wright's numbers for the projection, compared to those inferred from Mercator; and a reproduction of the title page of the 1599 edition of Certaine errors.
You've improved the rest of the article so much, that where the article now I think needs a bit more detail is in the areas where it had a bit of content to start with -- notably Certaine errors, which probably deserves a section of its own; and more about the challenge that a successful course for the New River represented.
But really what I should be saying is Bravo! for what you've created. Jheald (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. When I find some time I'll have a look at the sources you've pointed out and see how they may be incorporated into the article. I hope you haven't given up working on the article! I agree that the article needs to say something more about the subject matter and importance of Certaine Errors. Also, I can't read French so you or another editor will need to see if there's anything in the French Wikipedia article that is worth adding to this article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hakluyt's memorial tablet in Bristol Cathedral

Thanks for letting me know - I don't think I could do better than the photos they have sent so I'll leave it - but if you need any other local ones let me know.— Rod talk 07:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Rod. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Rating

I disagree with your rating to the article Virginals. Please, if not too busy, see the talk page as to why. --Gwib (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gwib. Feel free to re-rate the article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Jacklee for your very useful comments on the virginals article. I am currently working on improving and 'wikifying' it, and now understand that there is a lot to be done. Thanks also for completing the source citation (Pepys) in the form it evidently should take - I wasn't aware of the subtleties of quoting sources! Nick Michael (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NFCC question

Bear in mind, even if someone licenses an image of themselves under the GFDL and CC-by-SA, they typically retain their "personality rights", which may put some of their fears at ease. WilyD 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will mention that to the copyright owner if the issue comes up. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

GA for Criminal Damage in English law

Hi, thanks for reviewing this article, I have been a little snowed under lately but will begin to make your suggested amendments shortly. I'll let you know when (I think) I've finished. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okey doke. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jacklee, I have now addressed all your bullet points, hopefully. I've added in a couple of relevant images and a mention of powers to award compensation. As far as textbooks and opinions go, I live miles away from a law library and have not been able to tackle that. I'm not sure how important this is, however, because all you tend to get is opinions, and I'm not sure the article would benefit much from having a discussion on that basis. On specific cases (such as R v Hill & Hall & its political nature) perhaps, but unlike Smith on Theft, there aren't any experts on Crim. Dam. If you think it won't pass without, please leave on hold and let me know, but I don't get my next benefit payment until Tuesday so can't really travel. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I should have some time to look at the updated article over the weekend or early next week. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and also taken the liberty of doing a cleanup. My comments are on the article's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Virginals

JackLee, further to your useful comments about the Virginals article, I have made a major expansion and entire re-write now, and should be most grateful for your opinion. I think I have included all your suggestions. BTW the new edit is under my son's ID as I didn't realise he was logged in when I pressed the final button - all the glory to him, the undeserving brat!. Nick Michael (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, will pop by and have a look when I'm free. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Boosey & Hawkes: {{Opera}} template

Thanks for letting me know. This case is pretty marginal. I'll probably leave it as it is. Best --Kleinzach 03:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ExCathedralogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ExCathedralogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)