User talk:Ww2censor/Archive8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ww2censor. 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.

Talk page • Archive1 • Archive2 • Archive3 • Archive4 • Archive5 • Archive6 • Archive7 • Archive8

Yeah I will get around to it at some stage, i'll brush up on how to footnote and reference on wikipedia.... it's like looking at the matrix sometimes, a little off-putting at first I must admit. Thanks for your message the other day, i'd have be fumbling around a long time without some of those pointers Lazarus89 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, if you need some help just ask how to do it and I can point you to some examples. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, image copyright is one area I avoid like the plague; life is too short :O). I found (what I think is) the image in question on the Belfast Council website and I think that it arrived there as part of a press release from the Northern Ireland Music Industry Commission and could well have been a promo image from the band themselves. I added a bit to your reply back on my talk page. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note on TimothMurphy's talk page pointing him to the conversation so he should get it all. Sigh, now I have to go and try and explain to some kid why he can't make up articles and logos; now that I look at it, I think he is more a fan than anything worse and I think he might have just had the world drop on him...; well, it's worth a shot at least. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that he is not bothering to nest them when a "nest" is set up. I sent him a note about this, got rolled back & called a whiner! Best of luck. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone else has already removed them all, so we are not the only one to see it differently then Kintetsubuffalo. I also told him about the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team creating assessment statistics from the templates. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Open a requested move for Derry, see how many of the same people wanting to move RoI say move that to the official name.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a better man than I if you choose that path. I don't think I would have the balls for that, but cunning indeed. ww2censor (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the right time (and I don't personally think either are good ideas), but it would definitely be interesting to compare people's contradictory arguments! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, (:> ww2censor (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See what happens when you mention something!!! ww2censor (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew that keeping this talkpage on my watchlist was a good idea :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, again! So here we go wasting lots of time. Sometimes I really feel like throwing away the watchlist so I can do some constructive editing. ww2censor (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Thank you!--Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to tell you, that the translation draft can be found at Wikipedia talk:Translation/Airmail, which is the common place for a pending translation. Please can you have a look at the termini technici, I am not quite sure about the English terms. Kind regards, — Tirkfl^talk 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Maybe we can start a list of philatelic terms in all major languages?

Cool, I will review later today if possible and look for citations that are needed to keep the article within current verifiability guidelines. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you are proofreading the translation yourself. That's funny because I just wanted to ask a proofreader to look through the translation. Happy Easter! Tirkfl^talk 13:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been sitting there for more than a month and I wanted to get started on providing inline citations, cleaning it up as there is some unnecessary detail that is better dealt with elsewhere, etc., but if you want to revert my initial copyediting for someone else to proofread do so and I will wait until you give me the go ahead. I am trying to keep my mind off some other stuff that is going on and wanted to start some constructive philatelic work. This could well become an FA if we work on it. Cheers and happy Easter too. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering why you undid my edit to the Irish postcode article? You marked it as linkspam in the history page, why? I don't work for, nor am I associated with the company in any way. It is to my knowledge the only serious, active attempt at a postcode system for Ireland. It seems to be quite a thought-through system and I think it adds to the article. I certainly didn't mean my edit to be advertising or spam. Is it simply because a private company is trying to developing it that you object to my edit as linkspam? --Trounce (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While I understand you reasoning, this is a link to a commercial company for a proposed product that may or may not be used as an official postcode system for Ireland, it does not belong on the Postal code page which deals with the official postcode systems. Whether you call the link advertising or linkspam is no reflection on you or your lack of connection to the company. However, there is a link to this topic in the Republic of Ireland postal addresses article though I am not too happy about it there either. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic on how did you came to the decision that it does not belong on the Postal code page? Is it because it is still being developed and isn't in actual use?--Trounce (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Both reasons, plus it is not a system in use by the Irish postal authority, An Post, therefore is not an authorised post code system. It is still in development, so is not even a current system and it may or may not ever become the post code system of Ireland. Hope that clears up my thinking for you. ww2censor (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But where does it say that to add information to the Postal code article the system must be in-use and not in development, or is that your own personal opinion? I think its a very narrow point of view you are taking. An Post has stated it doesn't want a postcode system... so even if the government did introduce one, chances are An Post may not even use it- so if we are waiting for An Post to set the standard we'll be waiting a long time. As the article alludes to, there are other uses for postcodes, such as for the ambulance service etc.

I think it's a shame that absolutely no reference can be made to the on-going private sector system that's in development. Would it not be possible to put in something along the the lines of:

There is an ongoing attempt to develop a postcode system from the private sector*. However, it remains to be seen whether it will gain widespread public use without government support.

And where the * is I would put a footnote-reference-link to the bottom of the page that would then link to the details of the system?--Trounce (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

- why have you removed all the discussion with garyduh on this matter from your talk page? For those interested in the arguments on includions on this page please look at garydubh's talk page here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garydubh - there seems to be some requirement by this censor to only allow Press Reports on items approved by the Irish Government - the censor does not seem to want to have the discussion on his pageBaggywrinkle (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for support Baggywrinkle - and as well as this - he continues to ignore Trounce who has made all the same arguments. This article therefore is without value - redundant and should be removed as the only ones who can add detail are those who refer to Government proposals - China comes to mind..... For those interseted in a wider undertanding on this matter, a full description of a proposal alternative to that referred to in the Irish Independent's article quoted here is offered by GPS Ireland and full details are contained at www.gpsireland.ie under "Post Codes". This proposed system is already at field testing stage.

Finally those on wikipedia who chose to refer to an Irish Times journalist as "lazy" will no doubt be hearing from himself. Garydubh (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Censor>>>>>> I am struggling to understand how people who obviously know nothing about this, obvious from their comments, persist in holding the article ransom to their ignorance. You refer to our system as a GPS System. The code is not a GPS System it is a geographic code - it can be used on a GPS system as it can on a GIS system and routing systems - and , of course manually if you wish. The tools used do not define a system. The current Post Code system in use by An Post is an OCR based system but you would not call it an OCR code - it is their Post Coding system. Perhaps it may also be a revelation to you if I highlighted that An Post firstly does not want a Post Code system (Quoted in the Article) and secondly will no longer be the only Postal organisation in the country from next year onwards - so any "Post" Code system developed will not be for their use - although there is nothing stopping them from using it. So your comment relating to requiring An Post to adopt the system is not relevant at all and unfortunately highlights again the common mis-conceptions on the subject. Adoption of a Government backed system will be managed by ComReg and the system adopted may not be that recommended by consultants to the Government. There are several other systems recommended by private players such as mine (two others I am aware of) and to be absolutely correct none require backing of the Oireactais - all that is required is popular use!!

It also may shock you to understand that predictions show that 80% of all items delivered in Ireland will be packages and parcels in 20 years time and are already a significant proposrtion now - tahnks to E-Bay and Web Purchases. Therefore, the current quest is not to design a "Post" Code but rather a Post, Parcel, Goods etc Code. Difficult to get these all in one neat "package" so the word "Post" is still used for popular understanding but it would be a mistake in designing a MODERN code to take this litteraly. It may also surprise those who persist on blocking expansive consideration here, that any item delivered to any location in Ireland (post included) travels 95% of its journey by vehicle. Therefore the Code adopted must take this into account. The Postman on the ground has no need for the code -It will have done most of its work before the postman gets on to the street. In fact, with deregulation in 2009, the days of a Postman's "round" will gradually disappear due to dilution of services to many providers who will be hopping from one area to another to carry out their route - all being achieved directly from a vehicle. Therfore, in its widest sense;- Courier, document, parcel and delivery services all require the capabilitities of any adopted Code whatever it is called and 95% of its influence will be everything but to those on foot!! Essentially, therefore the role of a modern "Post" Code is a logistics and navigation one i.e. all deiveries in Ireland, mail or otherwise, thereby requiring routing calculations which are achieved on specialised software where geographic coordinates and road/street digital map detail is critical. Web based purchases comprise part of modern mail and many of these are done by couriers in vehicles. After the routing calculations the next part of the task is navigation - i.e. the driver finding the delivery location or property! The driver does not have a daily route on an exact set of streets/houses - it varies day to day and indeed the driver may never have been that way before. For this reason the final part of the delivery must be designed to improve fuel efficiencies, time economies - this is even more important with the competition generated by deregualtion, the rocketing cost of fuel and the need to minimise carbon emissions. For this reason SatNav/GPS is an eessential tool for the final delivery phase. Near 100% road mapping for Ireland on these devices is leading to a greater demand for a solution to non unique addressing. Furthermore, the nature of modern deliveries is such that nowadays in a growing number of cases, deliveries are made to non structures. A prominent Dairy COOP recently adopted GPS systems on delivery trucks for delivering Grain as this is delivered to Silos which may not be associated with a property and the client may not be around when the delivery is made. Consequently, they were experiencing signifacant additional costs when they delivered to the wrong silo by mistake and had to pump it out again. So Delivering anything is a logistic and navigation exercise for which GIS, Routing Software and GPS are now routinely used. All of these tools have two things in common - the need for digital mapping and geographic coordinates. Therefore, any so called "Post" code developed must take all these requirements in to account. Codes which focus only on the delivery of mail by the traditional Postman will be doomed from inception as, ultimately, there is a greater demand from vehicle based deliveries than foot based postmen. There are many proposals about - one only of which is being currently mentioned in the article on Postal Addresses In Ireland and even then this is being reported incorrectly as that which is reported is technically unworkable. The system I am proposing is designed with Logistics and Navigation in mind using my background in supporting vehicle management and my deep knowledge of Air, Marine and Land navigation (MSc Degree) and near 30 years practical, support and teaching experience. It has at its basis geographic coordinates, which are the primary need of any proposed Code. (My local postman wants to use it straight away on his SatNav in his van as he is new and has taken up to 11 hours to get around his route, not knowing the area!!)

You should also be aware that I was consulted as a stakeholder by the Post Code board more than 3 years ago and I provided seperate advice to a member of the board on matters GPS and and geographic coordinates, position etc.

So hopefully this will have widened the knowledge of all those who are persistant in theire "Undos" in this article and absolutely refutes your assertion that what I have designed is a GPS System and that I have not been involved in the "Post" Code development. Furthermore, the misconception that An Post will have to accept any adopted system should now be permanently dispeled. Perhaps now at least so called "all knowing editors" will not be so quick to write off by input in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garydubh (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I've added a bit at Postage stamps and postal history of Canada, and I'll try to occasionally add other material, but I'm not going to promise much. Eclecticology (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Down to one page now.

So much for my idea of a break, but it's kinda addictive ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you feel like, well not to the same extent in terms of quantity. That was me when I started back in August. Surprisingly I found some totally untagged articles this morning. I suppose it never really stops, just slows down to a crawl, let's hope. ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I doubt it's heading to a crawl yet -- this is just the end of phase one :(

There are thousands more untagged Irish articles -- remember that BHGbot's initial run only tagged those which had a stub-tag at that time, and my tallies showed about 5000 more then. And goodness knows how many more articles have been created in the 11 weeks since BHGbot did that job.

Once this is complete, I'm going to get BHGbot to start tagging the rest, but I have held off for now partly because of my flakey WindozePC , and partly because I want us all to have satisfaction of putting a big shiny "done" mark beside the tagging of the stubs.

This exercise is interesting, because I haven't just been WP:IE tagging, I have also been adding {{ unreferenced}}, {{primarysources}}, {{refimprove}} etc tags (having written a few quick scripts to speed that up), and it has been interesting to see that that while there are a lot of unreferenced or under-referenced articles, there are more well-referenced ones than I had expected. Except, sadly, the GAA: 90% of what I encounter there is wholly unreferenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Wishful thinking on my behalf then. So another 5,000 at a minimum. I have noticed how little referencing seems to be on the GAA articles, but I have other stuff to keep me busy though I did once win a medal in school for being on a winning GAA team!! My other Ireland WikiProject concerns are at how many of the geographic articles are becoming tourist guides with too many images and too little encyclopaedic text - that is disappointing. ww2censor (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed that problem with geographic articles. The proliferation of photos would be fine if the the text grew too match, but all too often the text is either the touristy gloss you describe, or trivia — sometimes of the tediously inane variety ("Harry's Pharamcy on Main Street is run by a very nice man" etc), but all too often there is petty vandalism (usually kids slandering other kids). I have taken to semi-protecting rapidly when I see the petty vandalism, but it alarms me how few other serious editors seem to be watching these articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I too take a strong line with such vandalism usually leaving a BV warning with little hesitation. Regarding the quality of Irish geographic articles, I don't know what we can do. Perhaps we need to develop some additional Irish MOS criteria for them. Should we discuss elsewhere or just go along as usual? ww2censor (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, what was wrong with the changes i made? i dont mean it in a defenseive way, id just like to know more about what you said? Nowhere.now-here (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. ww2censor (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#It.27s_empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that , i assumed the work BHG is currently carrying out was a result of this discussion , have marked as stale , change or remove that if you wish Gnevin (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the template are handy when looking at archived stuff to see what was sorted, and what kind of petered out RV if you wish Gnevin (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref tidy. It should have something on the bicentenary and the burials. Regards ClemMcGann (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing seems rather disjointed. Can you do something about that. I had to fiddle around to find out why they had been lost and that should have been easily found. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments & help regarding the Postage stamps and postal history of Germany, - a lot of the material and the dates are documented in the catalogues. I submitted the article for DYK, and if you have any further suggestions, please go ahead. The article prompted me to write a second article: Deutsche Post of the GDR, and I may ask for your help with the cats: Postal history by country will not say :Postage stamps and postal history of East Germany (same for postage stamps by country), but , of course, Deutsche Post of the GDR. How can this be fixed without changing the title? - Thanks. Ekem (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

While I know you may have acquired information from the catalogues, you have not given any citations. We really need these, so that information can be checked more easily. If you like, I will put citation tags on the data which shouId have citations and then you cabn get the specific rference information needed, otherwise you are leaving lots of work for other to do later and they may not have access to the appropriate books or catalogues. You should look at burden of evidence and the citation templates for guidance.

I have fixed the categories for the GDR postal service; we use Postal organisations and Postal systems by country for postal authorities not the postage stamps or postal history by country categories. These are reserved for articles about stamps and postal history, not postal authorities. Cheers and thanks ww2censor (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Ekem (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed in-line citations in both articles Deutsche Post of the GDR, Postage stamps and postal history of Germany) realizing that each article is always a work in progress and never perfect. Would it be alright to remove the {citation} headers? Ekem (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the one on the GDR article leaving a comment in the edit summary that you might address and will look at the other one later. Cheers ww2censor (talk)

Can you please place {citation} markers in the text of Postage stamps and postal history of Germany where you think it may be still needed? Thanks Ekem (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the importance rating at Talk:Bord na Móna! Peat is something we need to write the definitive article on for EN:Wiki. It's on my list....Sarah777 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I only heat by briquettes when I am in Wicklow! Apparently, many years ago, the Russians bought a peat harvesting machine (can't find an image to show you) from Bord an Móna thinking they could improve on what the Irish had made, but were unable to even alter it by one screw. I would love to get a verifiable source for that! Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the page. Jane Smith did a lot of good in her daughter's memory although i was kind of shocked at one article just after Sam died where she attacks mothers who keep their childrens bedrooms as "museum rooms" after they die - it just seemed a little heartless towards those devastated women. Paul Melville Austin (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Robson Lowe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Al.locke (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Al.locke (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest how a concept specific to addressing in the UK can be improved to have a worldwide view? -- Ratarsed (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the Post town talk page. ww2censor (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Aspects made it clear he/she wouldnt drop the matter - it wasn't worth a long fight. Paul Melville Austin (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I only see Aspects remove the flag icons once and besides, while they are strongly deprecated, flag icons are not forbidden, so I don't understand why you do not stand your ground, at least one more time, as you did previously. ww2censor (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

G*d i hate Aspects. Paul Melville Austin (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sp correction to my amends to this article. You also deleted part of the amend as "speculation". It was based on Clair Wills' book (see refs): "The bombings, which took place at a time when invasion fears were at their height, created a crisis in the diplomacy of neutrality. Since Germany appeared to be in the ascendant at that stage, the Irish government felt obliged to tread cautiously. In public, members of the government initially refused to confirm that the bombs were German while in private they puzzled over what the motive could have been. .... Or was it part of a systematic attempt to scare Ireland away from any thoughts it might be entertaining of improving cooperation with Great Britain?" There's certainly "speculation" but it appears to be at Government level - hence the phrase. I'll leave it with you. Have a nice break. TTFN. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ww2censor, I'll soon be vanishing for personal reasons. Thanks for your acquaintance over the past while and if you would, could you keep an eye on the Ireland portal. I've made a post to the Irish Wikipedians Notice board requesting someone takes it under their wing full-time, but I'd like to ask you personally (or at least for the short term).

Many regards, --sony-youth^pléigh 20:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On 12 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aghavannagh, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Clarisemailerscreen.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Hashmi, Usman (talk · contribs) is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive420#Blanking_user_talk_page. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please go to the infoboxes at Aconcagua, Mount McKinley, Kilimanjaro, Carn Eige, Carrauntoohil and Snowdon. The prominence rankings in these infoboxes have been there for more than a year and their presence there has never been challenged. Besides which, it is sensible to keep the prominence info in one place rather than have it spilling over into the main text. Thanks. Viewfinder 13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Half of the translation is proofread, so I think we can start merging it into the existing article. Kind regards, — Tirk·fl  ^“…”  09:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed you upgraded the rating of this song article to Start-class but was disappointed to find no comments were left as to why, after a lot of work recently, it doesn't upgrade to a B-grade. Could you offer some suggestions as to what needs to be improved or added? Overall, I am very discouraged to see that the ratings to all the Van Morrison articles by WikiProject Ireland seem to be quite subjective. Here's another example - And It Stoned Me was downgraded to Stub-class by WikiProject Ireland. Are your criteria just much stricter or should Van Morrison's articles not have been categorized in the Ireland Project but only in the Northern Ireland Project? Would he still have been considered in the Ireland Project if he was not now a resident of the Dublin area? I'm sure one has to live in the areas involved to really understand these factors. Thanks Agadant (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This came up on my watchlist. I don't see how List of entities that have issued postage stamps (A - E) and its siblings can be rated high importance if Compendium of postage stamp issuers (Xa - Yz)‎ is to be rated low. The two lists are similar in purpose but the compendium provides much more detail than the entities. They must be rated the same or the compendium higher.

I presume assessment has only just arrived in philately. I recommend you study other projects and see how they go about things. For example, in the cricket project we have just about got things together after a year or more of trial and effort. The military history project, which is huge, is very organised for assessment and we borrowed a lot from them.

One thing you should have is B-class criteria for quality and you must take a very strict line about top and high importance. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We have been working on this since last year though not in any highly active way, while I have been deeply involved with the assessments on the Ireland project so am familiar with the criteria. My feeling was that the List of entities that have issued postage stamps (A - E) +2 should be rated high but that the individual lists, in the overall list of things did not warrant such a rating; mid at best. Maybe they shold all be rated as mid-importance; remember they are only lists not articles but I could be convinced otherwise with a good argument. Perhaps you would get involved in assessing the philatelic articles if the cricket season is not too time consuming. Would you also like to work on some guidelines for the B-class articles? ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to be consistent and to remember that everything on here is for the benefit of the reader so for ratings you have to be strictly objective. If these lists (both kinds) were on the cricket project they would be rated equally as high or mid. Their importance lies in the global summary information they provide plus their ready links to specific articles.

I should have pointed out yesterday that "list" is not a quality rating. A list can be stub-class, start-class, B-class, A-class like any other article. It is only at the featured level that a differentiation is made: thus we have FA and FL features.

I do not have time to rejoin the philately project but if you want some advice about the six-point B-class criteria used by several projects, I'm willing to answer any questions. Regards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You must Change Your User Name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames which states:

Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are misleading, promotional, offensive or disruptive. • Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authorityItalic text, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual. • Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia. • Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible. • Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia. These criteria apply to both usernames and signatures. Usernames that are inappropriate in another language, or that represent an inappropriate name with misspellings and substitutions, or do so indirectly or by implication, are still considered inappropriate. The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors. If you want to seek approval for a username, you can do so by filing a request at Wikipedia:Request an account.

Please change without undue delay: --Garydubh (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ww, but the civility restrictions placed on me prevent me from giving an appropriate response here. Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not April Fool's is it? --Bardcom (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A little late for that! Why? ww2censor (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I am (slowly)working my way through the British Bike manufacturer red links and have drawn a complete blank with Clarendon. They are not mentioned in any of my books or on any search engines I know of - but I am sure I've heard of them - any suggestions? Thanks Tony (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at some sources here but I don't recall them even though I remember rattling off the names of 70 or 80 manufacturers with one of my pals, when I was in school. ww2censor (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything either. Perhaps you should just bin it. ww2censor (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking I've drawn a complete blank even with the 'experts' so have taken it off the list - if anyone complains they can show me where to find a Clarendon Tony (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I won't complain and if someone turns up with a decent reference, great. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ww - you may wish to perform the agreed action at the Fenit series of articles; everyone seems to be on board. Sarah777 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I apologize if my edit summary was snarky; that it might seem so only occurred to me after the fact! Best, Dppowell (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just worked with what I had in doing a messy merge but did not really think about the content in detail. Much of Fenit stills needs citations anyway. Hope you can help. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Bardcom's right in what he says. I thought the UPP was valid to and from Ireland. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklans (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It was valid in Ireland too. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is the most accurate and not offensive to us Irish. Here is a good Irish reference to it and this one also. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'm now getting the drift, bit slow off the mark eh. So its British Isles that's the problem. How pathetic is that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklans (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not pathetic, it is inaccurate and verifiable. British Isles is a geographical term. Royal Mail, the government department and postal authority of the legal entity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland enacted laws that brought about the Uniform Penny Post. British Isles has no legal standing in this matter even though some people use the terms interchangeably but inaccurately. That's all there is too it. ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - good reply, couldn't have said it better. Just as a small matter of interest, was the UPP valid in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? --Bardcom (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, I need to go look in my philatelic library. Will report here later. ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I found and added an image of the PO regulations issued on January 7, 1840 and it only mentions UK. Salt's book does mention Isle of man and Channel Islands but it is the only one; unfortunately he also uses the term British Isles. I wish I had some Robson Lowe books but don't own any but I will keep looking. ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)