User talk:Tpbradbury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Geske
Hi! I saw you assested the article Geske, and wanted some expansion of it? Iv'e expanded it today. The witch trials of the 1590s are badly documented. If headlines vere put in, perhaps it would be a B-article now? --85.226.235.206 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, i see, thank you for telling me. I cant promise i'll do that, but its good to know the criteria! --85.226.235.206 (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Assessment on William Rawson
Hi. I was actually surprised to see the article classed Start initially - it's short (at the moment) so it's obviously Stub - correct call in the end. Thanks for your efforts. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank You
Thanks for finding time to assess Atif Aslam. Appreciate it. Anshuk (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
SuggestBot (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, we weren't able to suggest any articles for you. Something is probably wrong on our end.
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barefoot to Jerusalem
Hi Tpbradbury. I was just editing Barefoot to Jerusalem and noticed that you, being the original author, had edited it beforehand, and I wondered whether you could help add to the article. Do you have any citations or references as to where you got your info from?
Also, I've added "User:" to those 'IP' users (they weren't before; they were links to mainspace pages). I hope you don't mind. Qwerty (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. I myself then went to the BtJ website for reference. As for the mentions of "IP" and "User:", see here, and you'll probably understand. ;) Qwerty (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History of Serranilla Bank
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article History of Serranilla Bank, 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of History of Serranilla Bank. Jeodesic (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Beaumont-de-Lomagne
I just noticed that. Good work...
| The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | ||
| This barnstar is award for great work on a certain French commune article (Beaumont-de-Lomagne), which has turned out |
- You deserved it. Basketball110 what famous people say 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Bonchurch article
Tpbradbury, thank you for taking the time in organising the references on the article entitled 'Battle of Bonchurch'. I am now aware of how to group references together. Once again, thank you. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed you have made several errors. In some of my quotes I used [], e.g. We [the French]. That was deliberate. I was including information in a quote that had not been in the original quote. I have undone the changes. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Guidance on assessing
Hi. I have been assessing articles for a little while now. I have always refrained from uprating very poorly sourced articles, as I believe it is a core issue. I have been discussing this with another editor, who believes that addition of information, sourced or otherwise, means he should rate upward from, say, stub to start. I won't budge an unreferenced article from stub, as I don't trust the integrity of the information without sources. What are your thoughts?
Also, is there a nailed-down guideline or decent essay related to assessment, particularly BLPs? I would be grateful for guidance to ensure I do the correct thing within the assessment department. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tom. I have since had a good look at some Project talk page postings regarding this issue, and have to agree that my parameters are somewhat restrictive. I will happily loosen off up to Start, but I would expect to see some decent verification after that. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Paula Creamer
Thanks for the review and upgrade. I noticed you made a number a minor style changes to the page, which I appreciate, but I think you made an error in the lead. Her birth date was linked 1986 in sports, which I agree isn't proper (I never even noticed it before), but now there's no link at all. Shouldn't it be linked like this since the full year is given? I could be wrong on this, so let me know if I am, and thanks again. Giants2008 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barack Obama
At least one of your recent edits has broken citations by changing URLs. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Percent
Hi, Tpbradbury. In a recent edit to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, you used JavaScript to change the word "percent" to the % symbol. My understanding, based on WP:MOSNUM#Percentages, was that the spelled-out version was preferred, except in scientific articles and tables. Am I wrong? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your message. WP:MOSNUM#Percentages does not state a preference on per cent style; I personally prefer % as it makes articles slightly more concise and quicker to read. Also, in a way more significantly, those using the script would have to undo all the 'percent' to '%' changes the script was suggesting so I'd be very grateful if we went with %. what do you think? cheers Tom (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I suppose that WP:MOSNUM#Percentages just gives common usages rather than an actual preference, but it does say that "Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings." I had previously interpreted that as meaning that in a non-scientific or technical article, it was better to spell the symbol out, but I suppose that an article with a lot of polling data and election results could be considered a "complex listing". I seem to recall that in another article undergoing FAC or FAR, a featured article reviewer said that the symbol should be changed to the word, but I don't remember the exact context. I suppose this is an area in which the standard is a bit muddy. Perhaps it should be discussed at the relevant MOS talk page. If it's not a firm guideline, I'm not sure whether people should be making the change over broad swaths of articles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
per cent is British, percent American???? I reverted one but you can decide and fix. DianeFinn (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have the the same concern regarding Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 and have posted about it at User talk:AndyZ/peerreviewer. My reading of WP:MOS is the same as Josiah Rowe. "Percent" should be the standard use in simple sentences. "%" is appropriate for tables, scientific articles, or "complex listings" where the word percent would be cumbersome (such as a sentence with three or more instances of the word). I have personally been through FAC where editors asked for "%" to be changed to "percent," and many style guidelines in the real world agree on this. I appreciate your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but I agree with Josiah that we shouldn't be using semi-automated tools to make this change over many articles. It contradicts WP:MOS by my reading and is an ambiguous matter of personal preference at best. I would suggest the percent/% parameter be removed from the script entirely.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Napoleon thanks you!
| The Editor's Barnstar | ||
| In recognition of your diligent efforts to improve the Napoleon I of France article, I hereby gratefully bestow upon you this Editor's Barnstar. Russ (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
I see you already have one! Great work on Napoleon! Charles Edward 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TUSC token b05a8e540a322c012e5b4fec0729ab76
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! t
[edit] Napoleon I of France
You've been doing a great job on this article. Much of it is still unreferenced, though, which will hold it up from passing a GA review. Thanks for your hard work, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
I have noticed your large amount of work on the article and thought I would let you now I'm going to be doing some major editing to the article, most importantly adding references! I would welcome your edits and opinions on any of my additions in the coming weeks. Thank you. LordHarris 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

