User talk:Chrisjj/Archive 1

Hello there Chris welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump or my talk page. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop

Hi. Obviously you're an expert as you live in St Neots. But why did you change the link on the St Neots page from Saint Neot back to St Neot (which is a redirect page). The page for the saint is at Saint Neot, just like Saint Andrew and Saint George and all the other saints. Mintguy 07:22, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mintguy. Thanks for helping with this. I changed it because I'm a Wikipedia newbie and didn't realise that the saint entries should follow the Saint George style; 'St' seemed more natural. I'll change it back to 'Saint' in a mo. Can we get rid of the redirect page or are we stuck with it? (I guess it does no harm!)

Chrisjj 6 Sep 2003

Is there an official policy on "St" and "St."? Since it is an contraction, I would have thought that the version with the full stop is the correct one, since this punctuation mark represents the missing portion of the word (similarly Mr., etc.). 80.255 01:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy I think (though I, myself, haven't checked). It seems that the full word, 'Saint' is standard in Wikipedia for the names of the saints themselves, and 'St' without the dot is the standard for place names in English. Unless someone else knows different!

And it seems to me that Mr and Mrs don't usually have dots either in standard modern English. They seem to have faded gradually from use in the 1980s. Most of the business letters I get today are to 'Mr CJ Jefferies' whereas when I was young they'd have been to 'Mr. C.J. Jefferies'. Language usage evolves, dictionaries, encyclopaediae, and books on grammar just try to keep up!Chris Jefferies 12 Dec 2003

Whenever I see Mr. it always has a dot; there's a fine line between people's being lazy and language's changing! The dot can certainly be officially absent in some place names, used extensively without it, however, whether or not it is technically correct or not. The same applies to genitive apostrophes - I daresay your town was once St. Neot's. 80.255 03:10, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, it would have been 'St. Neots' until, perhaps, the 1970s, and in 1500 it was probably 'Saint Neots'. But as far as Mr/Mr. goes, check some recent business letters - utility bills, car service invoices and receipts, I think you'll find I'm right. It's easy to see what you expect to see instead of what's really there.

Of course, spelling and grammar are not created by business letters, but they do evolve, often through laziness or by common errors taking hold. 'Correct' spelling and grammar are defined by common usage. As in most aspects of life (dare I say even county definitions), people mean what they mean, not always what we'd like them to mean! That's why dictionaries, grammars, and encyclopaedias have the role, not of defining meaning but of recording it. Chris Jefferies 08:32, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe the convention is that if a contraction uses the first few letters of a word (like 'Prof.' for 'Professor'), then you put a dot. However, if it uses the first and last letter of a word (like 'St' or 'Mr'), then no dot is necessary. This can also help to differentiate between 'street' and 'saint' - 'St.' is street and 'St' is saint. It could be that this is more of a matter of personal opinion that actual correctness, but this is the system I follow.

Hi Chris, I just noticed that you deleted my little joke under the Cirencester page (e.g., "people who are resistant to change like lawyers"). Did I offend someone? -- llywrch 23:43, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's probably my fault. I noticed your edits around the area, and decided to write a little article about this town, if only to note it has a funny pronunciation. Should have realised you might be doing one yourself. ;) Morwen 13:01, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Chris, just so you know, the counties issue is a real hot potato. 80.255 is a contibutor I've clashed with more than once: he's fought on this before and the current usage (as exemplified at Godmanchester) though awkward and desperately unclear to the average reader, is the furthest compromise he will allow. I personally feel that 80.255 is probably not willing to discuss this, but I wish you the best of luck. Frankly, I think that 80.255's insistence on this issue is harmful to WP, because it leaves us with a multitude of confusing articles that desperately try to keep afloat a county scheme that is long forgotten, something like converting all prices into the old system in a London cafe--"that'll be 10 of the traditional shillings (or just 50p from the coins in your purse)". And I say this as an Anglophile who loves the old counties and old English pound as much as anyone...possibly even 80.255. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, and we'll both hope for the best, eh? Jwrosenzweig 00:49, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, I have never refused to discuss this matter - on the contrary, in fact; I have many times requested that it be discussed, to no avail. I've noticed an increasing number of allegations floating around that I'm "not prepared to discuss" this matter - none of which have any basis whatsoever in fact, as far as I can see...

Secondly, the C/county system is inherently confusing, and this confusion is expedated by inexact references to and lack of deliniation between traditional Counties and administrative counties. More to the point, however, ask yourself this: what is more important in an encyclopaedia - avoiding "confusion" at all costs, or providing correct and factual information? No doubt all articles would be far less "confusing" if the latter weren't abided by!

Thirdly: you comparison with 'old money' is false. The £/s/d system was abolished; this is not debatable. The Government issued no official, categorical statement that it was not abolished - whereas exactly such a statement was made with regard to the traditional Counties. As I have said many times before, this is a point of fact and not an opinion.

My apologies to Chrisjj for posting what is in effect a third-party discuession on this talk page; there seems to be a lot of whispering going on against me 'behind closed doors' and I'm not prepared to allow such whisperings to go unchallenged! 80.255 03:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the hot potato. To give 80.255 due credit, he seems to me to be discussing the subject in a perfectly sensible and civilised way. And also, he's responded to my request to stop changing county articles - I'm grateful to him for leaving alone the articles I was working on and have changed back.

Until proved wrong I shall assume he means well and is prepared to join the debate and abide by whatever policy may be agreed on at the end of the process. Thanks 80.255! BTW, I hate to refer to you by half an IP address, would you like to share your given name, or do you prefer anonymity? Chris Jefferies 12 Dec 2003

I am, as I have evidenced several times, quite prepared to abide by a reasonable compromise whereby true and factual information prevails. I'm not prepared to allow misimformation, however, which is what some people seem to want (nor will I submit to tyranny of the majority view if this view is plainly at odds with the facts). However, the question seems mainly concerned with how information is systematically organised, rather than the facts themselves (although some people have a tendency to ignore facts when it suits them!). It is clear that unnecessary confusion can result when a single article attempt to deal with 3 or more different entities all known (in some form or another) as 'counties'; the only solution I can see to this is the creation of seperate articles covering each distinct meaning (as occurs in virtually every other case in wikipedia), and as can be seen at Gloucestershire, and several of the Welsh Counties. I have consistently suggested that this obviously successful system be put in place for all other counties (see my talk page); unfortunately, some people have again opposed this without offering arguments against it nor agreeing to discuss the matter in a sensible manner.

I'm quite happy to make no edits to the articles that you've mentioned for the time being; you strike me as being a reasonable person, so I'll assume this isn't simply a stalling tactic! However, to resolve those matters in particular, I'd like to know your reasoning on reverting.

Thanks, 80.255 03:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To deal first with your last paragraph, you and I simply don't agree on what is correct. You claim that logical argument demonstrates a once and for all correctness which Wikipedia should adhere to. I claim that Wikipedia should take current common usage as its guide. We need to find a way to agree, or failing that a way to agree to disagree. Meanwhile we'd both be foolish if we indulged in an edit war.

On the more general points I think there may be some misunderstanding about the governance of Wikipedia. If there is to be a policy on placenames it will come through open discussion, possibly followed by some sort of vote. But first we need to agree that there should be a policy, otherwise no policy can ever be put in place!

So I'm worried when I read about the 'tyranny of the majority view'. Surely tyranny is when a minority view (or even the view of one person) is forced upon multitudes who disagree. That's what a tyrant is. The majority view, whether correct or incorrect, is not tyranny, it is democracy! A tyranny depends upon the one or the few having some kind of power which enables them to force their view (correct or incorrect) on the majority.

Best of all is full agreement. Everybody is happy. Sometimes no amount of discussion achieves this happy state and the best that can be managed is agreement by all to accept the majority view, which may include a record of the remaining points of difference.

If we don't begin by accepting that consensus is best, that the majority view is second best, and that tyranny is worst, we will get nowhere. And this is often the point at which the majority feel the best and only way is to block further contributions from tyrants. Surprisingly, the main objective with Wikipedia is not that it should be correct, but that it should be realistic and as correct as possible. Where we can't agree what is correct, we need articles that explain there are two or more points of view, say what they are, and set out the main arguments for and against. But this should be done once and in one place. Other articles can refer across when necessary.

So can we begin by agreeing that consensus and the majority view have priority over correctness whenever parties disagree over what is, in fact, correct? If we can't agree that point, we do have a bit of a problem. Chris Jefferies 10:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This discussion has been copied to the Naming conventions Talk page - please continue it there, not here! Thanks, Chris Jefferies 11:09, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello Chris, Please don't post comments on my (or probably anyone else's) user page; I've moved them (and replied) on my talk page. Thanks, 80.255 01:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, Talk is where I meant to put them. My mistake - DOH! Chris Jefferies 11 Dec 2003

Hello I have added an explanation note to the counties naming policy at Wikipedia: Naming conventions (places). I have done this to make it clearer because certain people have insisted upon mis-interpreting it (see Shipston-on-Stour and Talk:Gloucestershire). I dont think it has changed the policy just explained it better.

It has already been OK'd by User:Angela and User:Warofdreams, is it OK with you?. The reason I'm contacting you is because you voted on the original policy. G-Man 17:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Image:Wittgenstein2.jpg - A declaration concerning the copy right would be appreciated. -- Simplicius 00:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:KingsCollege.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 04:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a Creative Commons Share alike licence. Chris Jefferies 13:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Chris - thanks for the note - I do have a tendancy to jump in with two left feet - must curb that - it's hard being bold but not daft! All the best - kind regards :) Brookie:A glow in the dark 13:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris - thanks for the further note - best not to understand - just follow it! :) Brookie:The grass on the hill 19:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed your spat with Owain. From my experience he seems to be intent on completely ignoring the policy and adding "X is in the traditional county of" to just about every Welsh town (look at the history of Cardiff, Porthmadog, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Welshpool) I've tried arguing with him but to no avail. He doesn't seem to understand that he cant just ignore the policy because he doesn't agree with it, and keeps arguing over old ground.

Frankly I'm fairly exasperated with endless reverts, I dont know whether you have any ideas to deal with him, as arguing seems to get nowhere. G-Man 18:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit of a problem. I'm still not happy with the St Ives article. Owain has a way of laying off for a bit and then sneaking back and reintroducing a traditional county when he thinks no-one is looking. I am exasperated too. Chris Jefferies 23:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, July's collaboration of the month is Northumberland, which needs quite a lot more work than last month's. I've listed some basic places to start on Talk:Northumberland, and will get to work looking up the statistics this week. (If you're not interested in further COTM updates, amend your listing in the table on WP:UK geo.) Joe D (t) 30 June 2005 22:58 (UTC)

See the argument going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. G-Man 5 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I'm in the middle of writing a contribution as I reply to your note above! Thanks for pointing it out. Chris Jefferies 5 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Take a look at what Owain has been doing at Middlesex and Herefordshire. He has also been adding a traditional counties infobox to numerous counties. Which looks suspiciously like a subtle attempt at POV pushing. G-Man 19:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

And I see you've been having a bit of a battle over Herefordshire. I've been out of circulation for a while, but I'll put a watch on both these county articles now. Thanks for letting me know and thanks also for your hard work on everything from articles on UK places to naming policy discussions. You are much appreciated (by me at least)! Chris Jefferies 09:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Could you direct me to the really easy Wikipedia mechanism for adding an outline map of the UK with any chosen place marked by a dot you mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places), please? --Cavrdg 20:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've just checked it out and it's not as easy as I thought :-( Looks as if I made some faulty assumptions. The syntax below works (open this page in edit mode to see the code), but someone has generated the images in advance. I'd assumed you passed it co-ordinates as parameters and it generated the map image on the fly. But no - so it'll only work for places that have been set up already.

{{GBdot|Cirencester - Gloucestershire}} {{GBdot|St Neots - Cambridgeshire}} {{GBdot|Bedford - Bedfordshire}} Chris Jefferies 20:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll read all the stuff about it at User talk:Lupin ... tomorrow, I think. --Cavrdg 21:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Shipston-on-Stour the history and the talk page. G-Man 22:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As it's sometimes considered bad form to get into 'third-party' arguments on other users' talk pages, I'm responding to your comments made to me on User_talk:Owain here:

'twist', 'unique interpretation', "policy", 'silly', 'libel', 'hell'? Wow, that's quite a lot of strong language and hardly chosen to calm things down so we can come to a consensus.

I didn't consider that G-Man's activities on the Shipston article were in any designed to 'calm things down'. Although the article was completely in compliance with current policy, he insisted on repeatedly adding a piece of completely unsubstantiated POV for, as far as I could judge, the sole reason of peeving me and starting an edit war, despite repeated attempts at compromise on my part. Yes, I do believe he is 'twisting' the policy, although he has accused me of exactly the same thing, using exactly the same word, so I don't feel that your criticism of my using the word 'twist' is very even-handed!

[Note: I provided extensive evidence to back my statement up which 80,255 dismissed, see Talk:Shipston-on-Stour G-Man 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC) ]

I agree with G-Man's view of the policy and that alone demonstrates it's not a unique interpretation.

Several people can hold the same unique view - it is unique because it differs from all other views.

By the way, I don't see how he can have libelled a county, what a very strange idea!

I was speaking figuratively, of course. I felt (and still feel) that he was attempting to deliberately downplay and disparage the historic county for reasons solely pertaining to his own POV.

It would be good if we could all approach this difficult issue calmly and politely. That's the only hope any of us have of reaching a resolution and avoiding harm to this wonderful project called Wikipedia. Please, take it easy.

I agree that calmness and politeness are indeed needed. Tell me, do you think that the following comment is constructive?

"I have absolutely no desire to have this argument again" [reference to discussion attempting to find a consensus] - G-Man 21:06, 22 July 2005.

[Note: Quote taken completely out of context G-Man 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)]

Or his recent comment to User:Owain (3 July 2005 11:26):

"Yes Owain, as I suspected you really are out of touch with reality."

Or his recent ad hominem attack on me, completely behind my back:

"[..] there are a few people who dont, and are quite fanatical. And unfortunately we need a relatively prescriptive policy to stop them from wreaking havoc [..]" (G-Man 19:42, 1 August 2005)

[Note: See the talk page above, 80,255 has done exactly the same thing to me and several other people G-Man 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)]

— not exactly calm and polite! And whereas I grant you that I do use strong (piquant) statements from time to time, I do not feel that it is fair to characterise me as being the sole perpetrator of such statement-making. Although you, differing in your own POV, probably don't notice it, I do get an awful lot of provocation from some people on this matter and, believe me, I excercise a great deal of restraint in my responses to it! 80.255 00:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This was originally posted on your user page by mistake.

Hi, don't worry about the accidental post to my user page, and thanks for tidying it up and reposting here. It's a mistake I've made myself in the past and easily done.

You wrote, 'I didn't consider that G-Man's activities on the Shipston article were in any [way] designed to 'calm things down'. But you're not responsible for G-Man's actions, we are each responsible for our own. There is clearly a deep, deep division between the way G-Man and I understand the history of UK counties and the way you and Owain do. The rest of the Wikipedia world will have opinions of their own or (in many cases) just won't care. If you and I can be polite and tone things down as much as possible, that will set a good example. Thanks for your post here on my talk page which does set an excellent example. I appreciate it. Feelings can run high when we can't agree, and sometimes we all say things we later regret (I know I have :-(

'Several people can hold the same unique view - it is unique because it differs from all other views.' By this definition all views are unique, no matter how many people hold them. I thought you were implying that G-Man was alone in his view.

'I felt (and still feel) that he was attempting to deliberately downplay and disparage the historic county for reasons solely pertaining to his own POV.' Apart from the word 'disparage' I agree with you. And of course you and Owain are attempting to deliberately emphasise the historic county for reasons solely pertaining to your own point of view. That's natural, of course people want to support their own point of view, who wouldn't?

'I agree that calmness and politeness are indeed needed. Tell me, do you think that the following comment is constructive?' Well, I'm not going to discuss G-Man's actions or motives here. We all need to be calm and polite, please tell me if you think I cross this boundary in future, I will try hard not to. If you have problems with G-Man's approach I suggest you discuss those with him yourself.

Let's hope that as Wikipedians we can all come to consensus, if necessary improve the policy document, and then all abide by it. Several of us have declared in advance that we will abide by the current policy or any future one, even if we disagree with it. If I feel the policy is faulty I'll work to get it changed again of course, but meanwhile I will abide by it. Can I ask you, too, to make the same declaration? It's on the policy talk page.

Thanks. Chris Jefferies 13:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for butting in, but I've added the above notes, to set the record straight. But if people are going to make accusations against me, I feel it is right to have my chance to answer them.

And 80,255 no I am not trying to to deliberately downplay and disparage the historic county for reasons solely pertaining to my own POV. I am merely attempting to ensure that the WP adequatly reflects the de facto reality, and does not display misleading or confusing information. G-Man 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

G-Man, you are most welcome to comment here on my talk page. I don't regard it as butting in at all. Chris Jefferies 10:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a suggestion that should help resolve this dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Suggestion for consensus. Please have a look. Thanks, 80.255 18:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you have been a little disingenuous in your example of Huntingdon, well written as it is. "Huntingdon is in [the Anglo-saxon Kingdom]] of East Anglia" is hardly useful. "Milton Keynes is in [the Kingdom of] Mercia" is just silly. Bedford is in the East of England Region but was (probably) in Mercia too. Eaton Scocon doesn't bear thinking about - the Ouse has probably moved in that amount of time! But I'm not convinced that it is a swing issue to the debate, hence posting here rather than on the Naming Conventions page. --Concrete Cowboy 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If this is addressed to me, please reply on my talk page. I have not touched the Huntingdon article recently. The East Anglia business was between Owain and Chrisjj. Personally, I agree with you about anglo saxon kingdoms (especially nonsense terms like 'northumbria'!); however they are commonly used to refer to vague areas. Perhaps it might be better to have an East Anglia (geographic area) article seperate from the article that deals with the ancient kingdom? Either way, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up with me, because I had nothing to do with this! 80.255 16:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I finally found time for some Wikipeding (after about five months of Northumberland!) and have picked Nottinghamshire for the next COTM. I've added a to do list to the talk page and have already started work adding some of the basic data. Joe D (t) 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. To stop receiving updates, unsubscribe at WP:UK geo.

Hi, the new COTM is Norfolk! Joe D (t) 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this month's COTM is Dartmoor. I have added some suggestions to Talk:Dartmoor to get things started. Joe D (t) 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)

The WP:UK geo collaboration of the month for October 2006 is Rutland. 80N 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)

Could you please take a look at a couple of pages related to the term gates? I am writing you because you have edited a few times the Sluice article. I was looking for some technical information about gates and found: 1. in architecture 2. other uses, amongst which was not the engineering use. So I complemented this latter page and wrote a stub on the engineering usage. After that I found the article that you edited. The word is used there quite a bit but is not a link. Anyway, I shall be most thankful if you would take a look at these pages, I surely will notice any changes you make. Vale, Lcgarcia 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Chris,

I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and have an interest in Solitaire Meissmer's page. I noticed you edited the Khao Lak entry a few times. As Solitaire was swept away from Coconut Bungalows on Bang Niang beach at Khao Lak, and as the search for her continues despite a positive DNA match with a victim, I was wondering if you could link back to Solitaire's entry? Being new, I'm not sure whether that would be accepted as an appropriate link, nor how to write up something new like that onto the Khao Lak page...

Thanks if you can help out (with either just answers and/or an update to the Khao Lak article). I think Solitaire's article does not link to Khao Lak at the moment either, so I will expand that page shortly.

Cheers,

Chris.

(PS - am I supposed to use four tildes, youcantryreachingme 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme thus?) ok. yep :)

youcantryreachingme 13:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme -- ok, I've found a way to put the link in; it wasn't that big a change :)

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you started this page back in 2004 I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rod, I've added a 'support' entry to the FAC page. And congratulations on a wonderful page. I might have started it (about two lines worth) but you picked it up and ran with it. You must have put in hundreds of hours to get it to this fine state. Nice work! Chris Jefferies 13:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you meant that as a user subpage... Regards. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We all maek misstaiks :-) Tonywalton  | Talk 12:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just 'unlinked' the heading in case it get's clicked on by mistake and the page is recreated. Chris Jefferies 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you work for Unilever then you should take a close look at the relevant policy for possible conflicts of interest. JoshuaZ 03:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed work for Unilever, though not in connection with promoting the company in any way, and I am certainly not receiving any kind of payment or gift for any contributions I make to Wikipedia.

You do raise a fair point and I've just read the relevant policy to make sure I understand it. I will also mention that the great majority of my contributions to Wikipedia have been on subjects other than Unilever. I last edited the article on 7th December 2006 with a note on the article talk page explaining why, the time before that was 30th March 2006, and before that 23rd January 2006 (again with a comment on the talk page).

I will probably continue as before, making occasional contributions. Please let me know if you think I overstep the mark at any time. Thanks. Chris Jefferies 13:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I confirm that this is my identity for voting purposes in the Wikimedia Commons picture vote 2006. Chris Jefferies 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refer here to the adress under which the vote was made. - Alvesgaspar 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The vote was made from IP address 80.6.20.172, I confirm that this is my identity. I hope that's what is needed. I read the instructions before my first vote and thought I had it right, but the instructions are, frankly, quite confusing. Chris Jefferies 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wi-Fi. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Jehochman ^Talk 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely unjustified. Anyone wanting to see for themselves should visit Wi-Fi and its discussion page.--Chris Jefferies 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you revert twice in the same day, as you have done two times recently, that indicates a serious problem. Rather than reverting, talk about the difference of opinion and work towards consensus. Don't just keep inserting the same unsourced statement. I've already explained how you can get your point into the article! Just dig up a reference from a reliable source, and I will support you. Jehochman ^Talk 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not 'reverted twice in the same day two times recently'. As I mention above, anyone can check the facts by visiting Wi-Fi. Look through the article's history and also the discussion page.--Chris Jefferies 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This was accepted as a non-violation.--Chris Jefferies 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

 

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Graham Pulkingham, by Mrzaius (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Graham Pulkingham seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Graham Pulkingham, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Graham Pulkingham itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:38, 1 July 2007

(UTC)

It is what came from Graham's ministry, not the man himself, that makes him notable. Starting with the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Houston, he and six other elders transformed that traditional church. The music ministry which arose from that - travelling teams known as the "Fisherfolk" - were well known in Anglican circles in the 1970s and 1980s in the UK, USA, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Those ministering teams - teaching how to worship in song, liturgical dance and poetry, were each supported by an intentional community constituted under Benedictine rule - known as the Community of Celebration. For a web archive about the Communities of Celebration, see www.CelebrateTheWhole.net. --Kiwi Bob in UAE 05:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How to you customize the clock (found here to Central Time? SLSB talk • contrib 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wittgenstein2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I can't help with this. I didn't supply the image, all I did was restore it laterally as the previous version was incorrectly reversed (unless Wittgenstein was wearing a woman's shirt and jacket when the photo was taken!) And as Uri who uploaded the original image no longer appears to be active on Wikipedia, the status of this image is now unresolvable. Maybe we should just delete it to be on the safe side. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Kosovo Independence 1 improved.PNG. 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. No problem. That's what we're here for, to encourage and help, not to shoot down in flames! Best wishes and good luck with the article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is just to let you know of a proposed Cambridge meetup - suggested dates currently Saturday 18 October or Sunday 19th October. If you're interested, please give an idea of which day might be best for you there - & if you know of anyone else who might like to attend do let them know! Cheers, Dsp13 (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The second Cambridge meetup is confirmed for this Saturday, 3pm, at CB2 on Norfolk Street: Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you added a note on Francis March to the Lafayette College article in 2005. You may be interested in this book, which is available from the Lafayette College bookstore:

March, Francis A. (2005). Schlueter, Paul; Schleter, June (eds.). Francis A. March: Selected Writings of the First Professor of English. Lafayette College. ISBN 0976516209. {{cite book}}: Text "location: Easton, PA" ignored (help) DThomsen8 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

FYI, the fourth Cambridge meetup will occur on the afternoon of Saturday 1 August. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Cambridge meetup is set for the afternoon of Saturday 14 November. Please contribute to the page and come along if you can. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6 - much as before. We'd be glad to see you. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Acalamari 12:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you be interested in WikiProject East Anglia?

If yes, please support us here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk talk 07:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to your first newsletter from Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia.Enjoy!

 

 

This is the first East Anglian Newsletter. We have set up the project page and templates with help from Thomas888b (Creator of WikiProject Essex). At last count we have got 41 articles and templates. We may merge with WikiProject Essex and Cambridge. Please visit our projects talk page to submit your opinion on it. We have already merged with King's Lynn. We will hopefully soon set up the following task forces: Suffolk,Norfolk,Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, Essex & Cambridge (If/When they get merged) and East Anglian Transport.

Hope to make the next newsletter soon,
Thanks for reading,
Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 19:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 

Hello, Chrisjj. You have new messages at Talk:List of Falcon 9 launches.
Message added 00:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I've seen you around on spaceflight-related articles and I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Spaceflight. We work on expanding and improving coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would be interested in joining please feel free to sign up and get involved. Thank you.

Thanks Chris for your recent work on improving spaceflight-related articles. Would be happy to have you join a group of us who working on such things as a part of our regular or occasional wikiwork. And if I can ever be of any help, just ping me on my Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Chris. In my attempt to clean up the citation metadata on a few cites today, I inadvertantly removed completely the citation for "sfn_wwls20130517" -- which was obviously data that was supported from an access to the SpaceflightNow world wide launch schedule that some editor made last May. Good news, it was "caught" by AnomieBot. Bad news, AnomieBot didn't find any old citation metadata for a 17 May 2013 access to wwls, so AnomieBot introduced another error by naming a fall 2013 access to "sfn_wwls20130517".

At any rate, I see you are in the article working now, so I won't try to go in and clean that up, so I don't create edit conflicts for you. If you'd care to clean that up, feel free. Or else I may get back there in the next few days. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've stopped editing now, feel free to go back in to sort out the citations. I must confess I'm not worrying too much about citations for launch dates because they do keep changing. I know strictly speaking that's bad, but the 'can I be bothered' factor gets in the way.

Thanks for the invitation to join the project. I might do that (though I'm unlikely to contribute more than minor tweaks here and there). Chris Jefferies (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Chris. Happy to see you joined the Spaceflight project, and very happy to see another editor interested in "tweaking" a few of the NewSpace articles from time to time, especially with all the activity relative to SpaceX, and the British-owned [[{Virgin Galactic]] has been back in the news more recently as well.

If you might have time to read an article, and tweak it in whatever way you see fit, I'd appreciate your help. I've written a new article on the SpaceX reusable rocket launching system technology development program. It only recently occurred to me that there may be a "first" in the History of technology coming early next year with one piece of that system: the in-flight turnaround and return to a vertical landing on terra firma of an orbital booster stage that was used to successfully launch an orbital payload. At any rate, if that happens, that article is going to get a lot more views, so its about time some other eyes get on it and begin to fix what may not make sense, or be complete, or find some photors, or whatever could use improvement, in my draft. I've put a note with a few thoughts on the Talk page over there.

So if you have some time to read it, I would appreciate it. Tweaks are welcome, as are more substantive edits. That's how Wikipedia gets better. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've read the article through and I think it's an excellent addition to Wikipedia. It fills an obvious gap (although it hadn't occurred to me until you pointed it out). I probably will come back later and see if I can make any improvements, but my first impression is that there's not a lot to be done. Great initiative! Chris Jefferies (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Chrisjj, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

• This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chrisjj, I am reviving the Charismatic Christianity WikiProject and noticed you were active in the past so I am inviting you to come back and help me get it going again. Callsignpink (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_counties#Request_for_Comment_-_Proposed_change_to_guidelines_on_how_to_write_about_counties as you participated in the original discussion on that policy. 51.158.24.100 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		WikiProject Notification

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		1 October 2020 — 31 October 2020

Volume 2 — Issue 1
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News! The Soyuz MS-17 launched on 14 October 2020, 05:45:04 and docked after a "two-orbit rendezvous flight plan" to the ISS only three hours later at 08:48:47 UTC. The OSIRIS-REx probe successfully makes brief touchdown and collects a sample from the asteroid Bennu at 22:13 UTC on 20 October 2020. Expedition 63 ended on 21 October 2020, 23:32 UTC after 187 days, 21 hours and 38 minutes duration. Expedition 64 began on 21 October 2020, 23:32:00 UTC. With ISS commander: Sergey Ryzhikov, and astronauts: Kathleen Rubins & Sergey Kud-Sverchkov. Soyuz MS-16 landed on 22 October 2020, 02:54:12 UTC after 195 days, 18 hours and 49 minutes in space.
Article of the month.   John Glenn John Herschel Glenn Jr. (July 18, 1921 – December 8, 2016) was a United States Marine Corps aviator, engineer, astronaut, businessman and politician. He was the third person and the first American to orbit the Earth, circling it three times in 1962. Following his retirement from NASA, he served from 1974 to 1999 as a Democratic United States Senator from Ohio; in 1998, he flew into space again at age 77.	Image of the month.   Captured on Oct. 20, 2020 during the OSIRIS-REx mission’s Touch-And-Go (TAG) sample collection event, this series of images shows the SamCam imager’s field of view as the NASA spacecraft approaches and touches down on asteroid Bennu’s surface, over 200 million miles (321 million km) away from Earth.
Members New Members: F.Alexsandr (Joined on the 8th October) Dndlp (Joined on the 18th October) Path slopu (Joined on the 23rd October) Wehwalt (Joined on the 24th October) Whoop whoop pull up (Joined on the 24th October) Josecurioso (Joined on the 29th October) Number of active members: 91. Total number of members: 295.	Article Statistics — This data reflects values from the 31 October 2020 Spaceflight articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total   FA 7 16 2 7 32   FL 4 4 8   FM 92 92   GA 11 22 36 47 116 B 1 46 37 46 130 C 55 157 513 446 5 1,176 Start 37 159 1,121 2,186 367 3,870 Stub 8 249 2,105 223 2,585 List 14 128 76 203 421 Category 1,020 1,020 Disambig 46 46 File 194 194 Portal 54 54 Project 67 67 Redirect 1,132 1,132 Template 485 485 Other 25 25 Assessed 125 536 2,038 5,044 3,121 595 11,459 Unassessed 54 54 Total 125 536 2,038 5,044 3,121 649 11,513 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 43,493 Ω = 4.93
October Launches — All times stated here are in UTC. Antares - NG-14 (October 2nd at 01:16:14) Falcon 9 - Starlink V1.0-L12 (October 6th at 11:29:34) Long March 3B - Gaofen 13 (October 11th at 16:57) Soyuz - ISS 63S (October 14th at 05:45:04) Falcon 9 - Starlink V1.0-L13 (October 18th at 12:25:57) Falcon 9 - Starlink V1.0-L14 (October 22nd at 15:31:34) Soyuz - GLONASS-K (October 25th at 19:08:42) Long March 2C - Yaogan 30-07 (October 26th at 15:19) Electron - In Focus (October 28th at 21:21:27)
November Launches — Launch dates can change. See a current list: here. Atlas V - NROL-101 Falcon 9 - GPS 3 SV04 PSLV - RISAT 2BR2 Long March 6 - ÑuSat 9-18 Delta IV Heavy - NROL-44 Long March 3B - Tiantong 1-02 Falcon 9 - NROL-108 Falcon 9 - SXM 7 Falcon 9 - Sentinel 6-Michael Freilich Vega - SEOSat-Ingenio & TARANIS Falcon 9 - Crew-1 Falcon 9 - Starlink V1.0-L15 Electron - STP-27RM LauncherOne - ELaNa-20 Angara A5 - Test Flight Falcon 9 - Türksat 5A Soyuz - Falcon Eye 2
Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list. Newsletter contributors:OkayKenji, Soumya-8974 and Terasail

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)