TSP

Hello, TSP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 20:23, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, TSP! It was good to bump into you at talk:Church of England. I used to be curate at St Andrew's Haughton-le-Skerne in Darlington. I moved down to Wiltshire three years ago. All the best with your contributions to Wikipedia and Diocesan Synod. Gareth Hughes 15:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi - yes explanation would have been proper. Ive modified the HCFE article to be more explanatory. -==SV 21:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good catch TSP; this apparent software glitch (see Talk at the article) has now happened to me twice for sure, and

I vaguely remove a third time. At any rate, you wuz quite right, a lot woulda got wiped out without you, thanx. Bill 09:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

Just been reading your interesting comment on the VfD page for the 'Doxbridge' article. I see from your user page that you work at DSU (I'm a postdoc at Cambridge). Out of interest, how common is use of the word Doxbridge in Durham, do you reckon? It's not a term that I'd come across before, so I'm wondering whether it's predominantly used at DU -- but I agree with you that every word starts off as a neologism :o) Having said that, I guess I'm slightly worried that creating an article (rather than a Wikitionary entry) for Doxbridge might be somewhat controversial: it's one thing having a term for the three universities collectively -- especially for reference to joint sporting events -- but a whole article suggests a special relationship that folks at Nottingham, Imperial, etc might resent!

In any case, for what it's worth, I reckon that comparisons between Durham and 'Oxbridge' do DU itself a disservice by not recognising its individual excellence -- it's a fantastic university in a really lovely city (my sister was a student there, so I visited rather a lot about 10 years ago). And of course, being from Cambridge, I reckon that the term Oxbridge is dodgy as well, as it associates that piffling little Oxford University with ourselves :-p

Stuart. -- Sjb90 4 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)

(I've added this page to my watch list, so do feel free to reply on here!)

Not very common - as I've just observed on the VFD page, the Google hits actually show more uses from Oxford and Cambridge than Durham. I've heard it very occasionally used, mostly in regard to sporting tournaments. I'm not fighting very hard for it to be kept, because it is a reasonably uncommon term; but it does annoy me that people are advocating its deletion on the grounds that it's purely a piece of Durham social climbing, because the facts don't seem to support that. (Though ironically one of the major themes in the Google hits is of message boards full of Oxford or Cambridge students complaining about the term - much more common than Durham students actually using it) :-)

I'm really not sure whether it deserves to be kept; on the one hand, it's reasonably uncommon; on the other, Wikipedia is not paper and it's a genuine term in, admittedly not common, use across quite a wide group of people. As I say, it wouldn't really annoy me if it was deleted; but it does annoy me the awful reasons being put forward for its deletion.

I'm not sure it makes any better a Wiktionary article than a Wikipedia article. The existence of the sports tournament is encyclopedic fact (which wouldn't really belong in a dictionary, or only as as a brief mention), and it's of encyclopedic rather than dictionary interest that the three, though for this rather limited purpose, choose to bracket themselves together in this way. TSP 4 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

Yes, I totally appreciate your comments here -- and I've added a supporting comment to this effect on the VfD page just now. Of course discussion about the use of the term at Oxford, Cambridge, or elsewhere does itself make its use more widespread and so potentially acceptable :o) I suspect the dictionary vs. encyclopaedia debate can be argued either way -- I don't have wildly strong views at this stage, either ;-) -- Sjb90 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-reasoned reply to Gangeska on the Doxbridge talk page and for your work on the Doxbridge section of Oxbridge. Well done! -- Jonel | Speak 02:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hear hear! The latest compromise is very balanced (good work there), and certainly from my point of view justifies keeping reference to the term in Wikipedia (spoken as someone who's been at Cambridge for the past 8 years -- far too long...). -- Sjb90 11:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I seem to have been inadvertently sucked into this whole Doxbridge affair - having started by following a link from Van Mildert College and feeling the need to do a heavy edit on the original Doxbridge article to remove POV, then ending up feeling like the lone advocate for an article I never felt very strongly for in the first place! I'm pretty happy with the text in its current context, though; I hope that when the regular Oxbridge editors get around to reading it they'll agree. TSP 12:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

For an article whose inclusion was debatable in the first place, this Doxbridge lark is proving to be rather contentious! Some people seem to have really strong views on the issue. I have a feeling that this isn't something that will just die down and go away: there will always be more people who stumble across the article and remove a reference to Doxbridge than wish to add it in. How would you feel about a suggestion to move reference to the term from the Oxbridge article to the Durham University article? Sjb90 21:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

*sigh* - well, it fits much better on Oxbridge, if it's going to be anywhere; and I don't like the idea of having to remove content from a page based on bad arguments, simply because those making the bad arguments are more numerous (are they more numerous?) than opposing them. Not that I believe there are no good arguments for its removal - but they're not the ones being made (nor did they convince the majority of experienced editors on VfD). TSP 08:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

see my comments on doxbridge talk page. You've done a good job on this one. 62.253.64.15 11:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dissenter is a precise term, but one which bears historical connotations that make it unacceptable in the context of the article - your point taken. But is it superfluous? Protestant is a vague term, a tag with no significance beyond its historical connotations - in itself, doesn't it confuse the issue that is to be joined ie. the universality of the church? In my view, it creates the same confusion as use of the term Papist, which is another historical tag. Please take a look at the discussion page on this article on the term Roman Catholic: there's a lot of talk, but no agreement on the terms of analysis, and it seems that logic is having to take second place to consensus. The introductory paragraph to an article ought to be crystal clear, but with this one even the title itself is confusing. Such is Wikipedia, but then Father Ted too used to skip essentials by saying, "That would be an ecumenical matter". God help us.--shtove 03:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Careful - you seem to have accidentally deleted most of the Roman Catholic Church page -and nobody noticed for several hours! --File Éireann 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I also felt the source was incomplete for that entry, however the name of the textbook I used to study history has escaped me, so remove it if you wish.

Hi TSP - Happy New Year!

I write to ask if you would be interested in helping create an article on "Northern Arts Literature Fellowship", a subject which I believe is offered at Durham University, as well as University of Newcastle upon Tyne? I notice from your user page that you work at Durham Uni, so I thought you may be a good person to ask. The reason I wanted to start this article is that I have an interest in Caribbean history and culture, particularly that of Guyana, where I worked for two years. I've created some articles on Guyanese writers, (for example) Fred D'Aguiar, and while researching D'Aguiar, noticed that he had been Northern Arts Literature Fellow at both unis. Any help, or suggestions, would be most appreciated (for example - should the article be just on "Northern Arts"?)

Hope you can help - All the best for 2006!  Camillus ^talk 20:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

KarenS (talk · contribs) has added these links to a whole set of pages, even after I explained it, so I thought it best to remove them all, because it appears to be nothing but linkspamming. That said, I see nothing wrong with you re-adding some of these links if you think that they are useful. Guettarda 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is "Scripture Union's Transformers holiday"? Does it involve Transformers? JIP | Talk 09:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your vote on the requested move. What do you think of this idea as a compromise: If we can't ultimately come to a consensus, then what about moving the entire Roman Catholic Church article over to replace the Catholicism article? We would then move the current Catholicism article to a new page, Catholicity, which is really what Catholicism is trying to address anyway. And then all requests for "Catholic Church", "Roman Catholic Church", etc., would redirect to Catholicism. If we cannot reach a consensus on the words "Catholic Church", I think "Catholicism" is a good compromise. Please indicate if you are amenable to this compromise idea. --Hyphen5 13:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for responding. Please see my my reply. I am very much willing to work with you and any other interested editors on a logical arrangement of these articles. I'm just kind of frustrated about how this debate has gone on forever with no action. Hopefully we can work something out. --Hyphen5 19:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

TSP, I have read the naming conventions. They say nothing about this controversy. Please direct me to the ones you think are relevant, because I must have totally missed them. --Hyphen5 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Tim: Thanks for trying to bring the discussion back to the naming conventions. That's what I should have been doing; we've gotten distracted in arguing about who has the "moral right" to the name. I don't want to be the first to endorse your proposal, because I think everybody hates me so much that I wouldn't want them to associate you with me! But I just wanted to send a note of thanks for trying to bring sanity and clarity back to the discussion. P.S. I'm Frank. --Hyphen5 14:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, what do you think of the Catholic Church (Roman) idea? --Hyphen5 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

--Fasten 12:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your redirect of Category:Dissident Catholic Theologians is inappropriate because it is a category, not an article. Once all the articles have been moved to the new category, it should be nominated for deletion, or in this case because it's a simple capitalization change, nominated for speedy deletion. See Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and WP:SD. --Blainster 20:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I quite understand, and I did, after all, allow it to get out of hand. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You know, we came close to peace. But, I think your inflexibility has put an end to that any time soon. --Vaquero100 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Trying??? I really think this is just a game for you. Let's call it "Screw the Catholics." Honestly, I look around the other church articles on WP and find nothing even close to this kind of badgering. For a moment, I was weak. I was willing to take a second class place for the Catholic Church on WP just to make peace. But you and Fishhead are just far too arrogant to work with. --Vaquero100 18:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

TSP, I have looked at your user page as well. Your claim to objectivity is belied by your St. Chad's College roots and your status as the son or daughter of an Anglican bishop. Anglicans have a notorious history with regard to Catholicism. This is my personal experience and the lesson of history. Neither charity, justice nor common decency is your tradition's norm. As an American Southerner of both Irish and English decent,I am well familiar with the dynamics of discrimination. It is most powerful when it lurks just beneath one's conscious awareness. I hope you come to a new consciousness and a new conscience. --Vaquero100 09:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

TSP, I know you are right about the NPA. I owe you several apologies for some of the personal comments I have made on here and on other WP pages. I'm sure you are a fine person and that I'd enjoy meeting you.

Still, I am trying everything I can to figure out the motivation behind the Anglican POV and its unyielding manner. I know I should not assume "bad faith" in WP terms and I don't want to be uncharitable. Perhaps it is my lack of imagination that I can only see meanness in it. Anyway, it is still wrong.

My apologies,

John --Vaquero100 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

TSP, Greetings from Our Lady's University, home of the "Fightin' Irish". Yesterday, Mary McAleese was the honored speaker at our commencement ceremony. She was great. But she kept talking about the indomitable Irish spirit and the hardships of Irish history. We are mostly the progeny of the famine here, so we have our own family stories to tell...Anyway, I'm going to blame at least a bit of my bad spirit on the good Mary McAleese.

Thanks again for your support on the ancillary article names. I don't suppose it'll get far in the short term, but the Irish have learned a patient impatience. --Vaquero100 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure I have evidence; its in that same document, Humani Generis! You see the Church at large does not entitle itself by a any particular region or place. The Church, by far, has most commonily referred to itself by the most generic term, either simply the Church or the Catholic Church. When it adds adjectives to these titles it is more for "descriptive" purposes. Sort of like, say there were two or more countries (Churches) calling themselves by the same name then in the name clarity adding a geographic description to point out which country is being described.

For example, assume the following senario. An 1860 America where the North and South never unified, and the South decided to go by the same name "USA" - Then in a speech to the South Abe Lincoln in referring to the North must add a descriptive term to clarify which nation he is speaking of. Thus he may have to say : the "Washingtonian USA" .

Would Abe be changing the title of the country by making such at statement? No, he would be simply adding a geographical adjective as opposed to saying the more brash " the USA in union with me (the President)."

Thus when Pope XII made that statement he was using "Roman" as simply an additional adjective in pointing out what Church he was speaking of he was not suddenly changing the name of the Catholic Church.

Let us review Pope XII's encyclical where he mentions "Roman Catholic Church"

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine (such as Anglican Catholic, Orthodox Catholic Churches, etc.), explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith."

Hence, when he makes that statement, he humbly mentions the geographic descriptive term "Roman", instead of saying "the Church in union with me (the Pope)". However, this in turn created other problems because one must ask as occurs with Non-Cathlics did he mean a church simply called the "Roman Church" in the same like as to a Greek or Anglican Church, etc. or as in the Latin rite only which you TSP point out. Those erroneous interpretations are clarified as we read the entire document in context. You see, usage of this term is not utilized by the Church when it speaks in the general sense. It is used referring to the particular Latin Rite section of the Church or when specifically speaking to others which do not recognize the Church's authority. This is exemplified in Humani Generis. In that very same encyclical, Pope Puis does not attempts to limit the confines of his church to simply a "Roman" Church audience but to the entire/universal body of Christians. Because, except for that one instance where he is speaking directly of those outside the Petrine authority, he refers to that religious institution not as the "Roman Church" , but simply as "The Church" none-the-less than 46 times to 1. (including "the true Church" in that very same paragraph)

Whereas,

1) the Church's, by far, most utilized title is "Catholic Church" (officially simply "The Church"),

2) this article is not a religious or eccumenical document,

3) the added prefix only creates more confusion as it may relate to the Western Rite (not the Church at large) and/or those in union may be Catholic, but not Roman (Latin) Catholic by title.

4) the usage of the term "Roman..",outside the church historically and in many ways even today, is used in a derogatory sense. [1] [2]

I reiterate the need to change the title of this article to simply the "Catholic Church" not only because it truly IS the lone institution that goes by such a title, but because those that do not recognize it as such already have their non-Catholic point of view - a neutral POV does not exist- based articles well represented in Wikipedia. ( see Catholic, or Catholicism). Micael 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

TSP, please use good faith on WP on Talk:Roman Catholic Church and please do not 'bully' Catholic contributors as an Anglican bishop's son. Ghfj007 16:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This didn't ought to be redirecting to Oxfrog AD, did it? Only I'm not quite feeling confident enough to re-redirect it, so I thought I should check with you? --JennyRad 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fleeting googling and examination of the Academic_dress@yahoogroups archives suggest it's used more generically, even if the technical meaning is Oxford-specific. I'd have thought a redirect just to Academic Dress made more sense. But I don't have the confidence to actually try it ...--JennyRad 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've moved them to less specific names, and requested the leftover redirects be deleted. It was nowhere near the top of the Google hits unless someone is googling bill gates fornicate, which seems a stretch, but still probably better safe than sorry. Niteowlneils 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This idea of merging Catholic and Catholicism has been debated over and over again. The result is always the same — no. Please don't bring up this debate yet again. Apart from anything else, they are not the same. The latter refers to a religion. The former has a number of meanings, including a religion. FearÉIREANN \^{(caint) 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)} Reply

What seems to happen is that every so often someone deletes stuff unique to each article. Then someone undeletes it. It gets deleted again. And so the saga goes. The problem with WP is that one individual can sneak through an edit that removes something important and if no-one notices it in time, and others innocently edit the page further, its absence is only noticed when someone who read the page months earlier glances at it and spots that something important has been lost along the way. (Sorry if I sound grouchy about it. There are certain issues; abortion, religion (specicially Catholicism), Irish republicanism, George Bush, conspiracy theories, etc, that run into this problem all the time. I have given up being the 'clean-up guy' on them. I'll let others do that in future. :) Slán FearÉIREANN \^{(caint) 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)}Reply

Please issue warnings to anons who make tendentious edits, we can't beat them with the cluebat until they've been warned. Thanks, Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tim, I've just left a comment on Template talk:Shades of violet, following on from a previous remark on Talk:Palatinate (colour), regarding the thorny question of what hue of purple palatinate really is. The UoD has different shades all over the place, and I've never seen the coat it's supposed to derive from. I'm not convinced that the colour on [3] is anywhere near true; it seems much too dark to me. Have you ever seen a true copy of the shade? Do you know if the rumours are true that Ede and Ravenscroft have the coat, to then ask them for a copy of the colour? You're the only person I can think of who would know without researching it myself... :-) DWaterson 20:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I appreciate your help in making one of my photography look better but what do you use (program) to reduce the noise and making the image look better? Thanks. Arad 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

And please give us your vote for Arge Bam on FPC. Thank you. Arad 19:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again m8. Useful information. It'll probably help me in the future. And thanks again for fixing my photo. Arad 01:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

One day that page will be a disambiguation page, I hope. ;) The Wednesday Island 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you, but can you check the new photo (Baghe Eram Shiraz) at the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates page and see if it needs downsampling? Thanks a lot. Arad 12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi TSP, Thanks for bringing the copyright issue to light, i think after reading the policy, that all bar Hatfield's and Castle's crest would be deemed copyrighted due to the issue of non-geometric shapes and therefore creating enough originality, although i dont think that castle's and hatfield's would be copyrighted as it is just the shield as set out by the blazon and a motto which again is perscribed and so can not be deemed original. So it might be best to remove the others and place the free licence ones in their place. Once again thanks for bringing it too light =) AlexD 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating and uploading this nice vector graphic in response to my request. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham - Collingwood arms.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham - George Stephenson arms.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham - Grey arms.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham - Hatfield arms.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

TSP, I have a personal interest in Anglican realignment and believe I recall reading your bishop' strong response to the covenant for the Church of England. If you have any interest in the subject, you might want to check the article. I started it back in December. Though I am Ukrainian Catholic, I used to attend one of the churches that recently realigned in Virginia. It would be good to get some Anglican eyes on the matter. Thanks. EastmeetsWest 16:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the delete of the Cartlon Banks photo ... I must have been adding the comment on the talk page when you did it, because I was Really Shocked to find that it had been reverted already ... Good Call on the "fair use", BTW ... you've obviously had some experience with this kind of WikiTroll. Dennette 01:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I assert that I am the same user as commons:User:TSP. TSP 04:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The image most certainly is of a pork pie hat. A pork pie hat is a round hat (no indentations) with a short brim, generally with a ridge around the top (sort of like a traditional pork pie has). The hat is most certainly a pork pie. I have another pork pie that I could perhaps photograph and put up that you might be more pleased with, but I assure you, the hat is a pork pie by any definition of the term. You might have contacted the uploader (me) instead of adding the "citation needed" tag. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is just the angle. I'll see what I can do about taking another picture (and probably of my other, newer, pork pie as well). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:1994grouplogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have been told by a fellow user of your, Marnanel, that you could possibly do a free-use image. Could you possibly do this for Image:Arms-herts.jpg? He also told me to tell you he says hello. Simply south 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi - the problem with the sources for this are as follows - the times one is a mention as part of a wider article and the BBC one is a user submitted review. The others are not independent of the source. --Fredrick day 17:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

In reverting vandalism to the above by User:Gerardlvr, I intended to revert to the last version by you but accidentally reverted to the one before. My apologies, and thanks for re-adding your edit. Euryalus 00:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you point me to info on how to do this, please? SECisek 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may be interested to know that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles) has now been created and there is a discussion taking place on the talk page. Readro 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:ButlerArms.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

As per your last edition in Villa Devoto, Don't you think the title should be "Notable" instead of "Famous"? There are many Nobel laureates who are not famous... Regards. --Damifb 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll change that then.--Damifb 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that your objection to the FPC was that it was too slow.. well BRIAN0918 created an edit that plays faster, so could you take a look at it and possibly update your vote? --froth^t 18:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, oops you already saw it sorry --froth^t 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Image:Maceo Parker 2005.jpg is licensed CC Attribution 2.0 on Flickr. The photographer had the ALL COMMERCIAL USES notice on his Flickr profile (http://www.flickr.com/people/vizzo/) so I added it to the Wikipedia page as it does seem to contradict CCA2.0, and I wanted to respect his wishes. You may want to contact the photographer directly to clear it up as an image with any questions about Free Use will probably not pass a Feature Review. dissolve^talk 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wassupwestcoast 04:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - |WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding to my comments and not using any ad hominmens. I think you are rational. I wish to discuss the issue and only the issue. Most do not even see the issue I am trying to argue, they keep making comments like "I'm not sure why were are discussing ID here.", "Might I suggest that questions about the nature of ID be discussed at Talk:Intelligent Design", The cabal has circled the wagons and won't let any but the faithful edit the page. I have only edited in good faith and have no agenda. You can see by my atheism edits.[4] [5] [6] [7] Tstrobaugh 16:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another editor demanded the cathedral image...I wanted to use the logos and crests of each church. The Compass Rose for all? Some variety might be good. -- SECisek 14:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah...misunderstood. Perhaps I can try the compass rose. There is debate about the info box template going on right now on the wikiproject talk page. Go weigh in! -- SECisek 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Universities_in_the_United_Kingdom&curid=8729506&diff=169883987&oldid=169852603

Hi — You don't think this makes the dividers too small? Sardanaphalus 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a past contributor to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. schools) I was wondering if you would be willing to add you current possiton in or concensus straw poll. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)#Guide to help determine consensus This notice is being post to the talk page of all users who have shown any interest in the subject regardless of their position for or against. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have done the move and fixed all redirects. —Random832 15:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Sorry for the mistakes, and thank you again for the kind comments. Suggestions on cat deletion for Roman Catholic dioceses in England & Wales to be subsumed within Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain? Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just signed in to unprotect it, and saw your message. Good that you asked. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help

i am still not sure why the point about the contemporous racism/eugenics/sexism in the Eleventh Edition was removed - it's like those movies that depict 1907 as just a funny version of 2007 with no mention of the corsets or that you could be legally beaten by your boyfriend or husband - as my great grandmother was for daring to speak up to her husband during a dinner party.

Margaret Anne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.33.31 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You owe me a new keyboard for my Mac and one glass of a very old, very expensive scotch. I spit up with laughter when I read that. Thank you for both the laugh and the public service reminder. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing the images! I was having a hard time with that. NancyHeise (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing my good faith edits. But beyond good faith, I think they were mostly (90+%) within policy and guidelines, or at least reasonably debatable. I appreciate that you noticed the wholesale revert. I hope the Rfc attracts other new contributors as I think I am witnessing confirmation bias at the Richard Sternberg article. TableManners^C·U·T 05:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Per your suggestion, I have started a subsection to discuss the inclusion of these image at Talk:Xenu. Please engage in discussion there. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made changes to the Beliefs section per our discussion. I would like to know what you think since I didn't change exactly everything you wanted changed. What do you think of it now? Do you still think we need to eliminate some sentences? I think it is very informative and factual and gives the reader a perspective. Let me know. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I also changed the Origins to include opposing viewpoint what do you think? NancyHeise (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments on these sections. I don't have a problem with removing the sentences in Beliefs but since another editor is the one who originally put these sentences in there and other editors concurred that there should be some mention of what other denominations believe, what do you think about putting these sentences possibly in a paragraph at the end of the Beliefs section maybe calling it Other Denominations or something? I would like to know your opinion on this matter. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think your edits are fine. Although I dont think it gives the reader perspective on Christianity as a whole, maybe that doesn't need to be said since the lead contains the information on the size of the RCC. I am going to leave it your way. Do you think the article is sufficiently polished to submit to FAC? NancyHeise (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chester Cathedral at dusk 2 - Embarassingly I'd uploaded the wrong version - please see edit 1 and my comments. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for your support. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dunno about the issues, but spotted some incivility, which led me to this diff you may want to sort out for consistency. --Dweller (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see that a trio of editors are pushing "Catholic Church" over "Roman Catholic Church". Personally, I do not have a strong opinion on this but I am aware that this is a controversial issue. No editor or group of editors should unilaterally push through a change without forming a consensus first.

If you need the help of an admin to enforce Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a message.

--Richard (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey TSP-- I noted today that Archdeacon had "Roman Catholic Church" changed to "Catholic Church" recently. Marnanel (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm very sorry, but I hadn't noticed your query until now regarding the shorthand for dates in historical periods. To give examples – 1334 x 1337 means not earlier than 1334 but not later than 1337. the term fl (shorthand for flourished) means in existence or living at the date given, e.g. fl. 1335 means building or person existed by the date 1335 but no other details are known. Hope this helps. Rgds, - Bill Reid | Talk 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

fl = Floruit. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#.7B.7BPage_d.7D.7D_-_suggest_removal_of_displayed_icon_in_article which you might find interesting - I've just found your comments at Talk:Zuph and Talk:Broadsword. PamD (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed your comments on Category talk:British investors in slavery and slave trading and have to say I agree with you. I think that category needs to be axed, not only because of POV, but also lack of supportive evidence in same cases, for example Isaac Newton is listed there and I really don't where that info is coming from (could be true, could not), so I foresee similar instances with names added to that category without any references and it promotes dubious additions. It seems like a shoddy category. I'd nom it for deletion, but to be honest, I don't know how. If you do, let me know and I'll address my concerns on the deletion page. That is, if you still feel the same way about it. --Trippz (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [8]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 00:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi TSP, Im sorry but I reverted your edit to the lead sentence because both terms "commonly and properly" come from this source [9] which we determined is the best source of all those anyone has found. The reference is an excerpt from a book written by Kenneth Whitehead that has been featured in the most prominent Catholic newspaper in the US, and also featured on the only Catholic television network in the English and Spanish speaking world, EWTN. Because it is the only source that has been promoted by Catholic media as an explanation for the Catholic Church name, it is more oft cited by the Church itself than other sources people have put forward. NancyHeise ^talk 16:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

TSP, what page is that quote from Walsh on? I can not find it anywhere in that book. I am trying to place it in a note after Catholic Church.NancyHeise ^talk 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding Primary Secondary and TertiarySources, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed change to PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [10], Thanks!   NancyHeise ^talk 17:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [11] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Further discussion on achieving compromise on this issue is ongoing on the Talk Page. Xandar 00:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wonder would you be interested in looking at this discussion. Soidi (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move --PBS (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good start. The current screenshot of a spreadsheet, although well-intentioned, doesn't really cut it for me, and I think we could do better. I have, over the past few months, been trying to deal with redlinks in the Fairport navbox, and have just started Bruce Rowland (drummer) as another. Ultimately, I think FC should have a portal, since there is enough material there to justify having one. Meanwhile, I will plug on with filling in the gaps. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, since you don't seem to be around, I've taken the liberty of moving this to {{Fairport timeline}} since it's so much better than the existing image. It just needs a few tweaks. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sternberg.Wolfview (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well guessed ;) Herve1729 (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gerry Conway was Fairport's drummer for a few weeks in 1972. See:

• sleeve notes for The History of Fairport Convention
• sleeve notes for Rosie (album)
• Humphries, Patrick (1982). Meet on the Ledge: A History of Fairport Convention. London: Eel Pie Publishing. p. 77. ISBN 0 906008 46 8.

It's the period described by some music writers as "Fotheringport Confusion", because of the five Fotheringay members, only Pat Donaldson didn't work with Fairport in 1972-75. You could try leaving a message for Omniacjd (talk · contribs), who was there at the time... --Redrose64 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, thanks. I'm still confused, though - given that the Fairport site includes an extensive biography of Conway listing his other previous bands, I find it very surprising that it doesn't mention a previous membership.

According to the sleeve notes on my remaster of Rosie, it was started as a Swarbrick/Pegg effort, and only later redefined as a Fairport album when Lucas and Donahue were asked to join the band - it also includes contributions from, among others, Sandy Denny, both Richard and Linda Thompson and Ralph McTell, who I'm fairly sure weren't in Fairport at the time. Conway appears on Rosie, which also features both Thompsons and Denny, and was one of the tracks completed before it was a Fairport album; and on Knights of the Road and The Plainsman, which were apparently both unreleased Fotheringay tracks which were repurposed so that the album included vocals from Lucas and Donahue.

The interview at http://www.innerviews.org/inner/fairport_conway.html suggests that Conway only worked with the band for a single day, and doesn't seem to sound like he considered himself part of the band.

TSP (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article Profound Decisions Ltd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable company. No independent references.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, TSP! I spotted a few helpful edits you've made recently for the Kinder Surprise article and wondered if you'd be able to take a look at a request I have for the page. As a quick disclosure: I do have a financial COI, as I'm seeking help on behalf of Ferrero SpA via communications agency Glover Park Group. It's not a huge edit that I'm looking for but one that is an important clarification: currently the first line of the article states that Kinder Surprise is also known as Kinder Joy but this is not correct. Kinder Joy is actually a different product, so this mention should simply be removed. If you have a moment, I wonder if you'd mind taking a quick look? Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi TSP!

You are right; it was a women's group that was praising Bishop Libby Lane. Thank you for that correction as I did not see it.

Blessings,

SeminarianJohnSeminarianJohn (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi TSP, I considerably condensed and edited the section on LGBT issues and it is now smaller than most other sections. Please, take a look when time permits. I also hope that someone could initiate the process to create a separate article for more in depth detail as you have suggested. I am in favour of that great idea.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since you commented on this nomination, I'm noting I added an Alt. Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Scott Thorson page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

What is her subject? Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Fairport timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

In an article on human sexuality, I'd have no trouble with that section, but since asexual people do not engage in sexual activity, it has no place in the article on Human sexual activity. If you wish we can discuss this on the appropriate talk page. Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your recent edits distort the accuracy of the references to the noted games. It leaves the implication that in these games, kibitzers can give advice or make commentary which is incorrect. If you have you ever played any of these games in formal competition, you will know that kibitzers are to be silent and impassive or face ejection. Please refer to The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge 6th edition, page 217 or any other good reference on contract bridge. A word can have contradictory meanings or have its original meaning corrupted over time. And if you have a need for references, please provide one for your edits. Newwhist (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Newwhist - I was just drafting a comment on this on another page.

It sounds like this may be a variant meaning of the term used in contract bridge; that's fine, but your edit suggested this was the primary meaning of the term across all games, which I think isn't the case, and makes places the term is used not really make sense. Note that the term isn't only a contract bridge term, nor one that only applies to formal competition. For example, see the article KGS Go Server:

"The KGS Go Server is distinguished by a kibitz culture. Kibitzes are common and popular in high-level games, and may include off-topic discussions though this is discouraged by the administrators. The two players cannot see kibitzers' comments until after the game."

With your edits, this would mean "The KGS Go Server is distinguished by a culture of watching silently and impassively." That pretty clearly isn't what's meant, and I think is not the mainstream meaning of the term outside bridge.

I'm afraid I don't have a copy of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge; perhaps you could provide a quote?

wiktionary:kibitz suggests that what we are dealing with is a term with two meanings: in most contexts, it means to comment or give advice; in bridge, it simply means 'to watch'. In that case, the article should distinguish between these meanings; but shouldn't be edited to say the bridge meaning is the only one. TSP (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've added a note about the different meaning in bridge, in line with Wiktionary. TSP (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Further to your request for a quote, the following is the text from Law 76 of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge which can be found on page 261 of the 7th edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge:

"LAW 76

SPECTATORS

A. Conduct During Bidding or Play

1. One Hand Only

A spectator should not look at the hand of more than one player, except by permission.

2. Personal Reaction

A spectator must not display any reaction to the bidding or play while a deal is in progress.

3. Mannerisms or Remarks

During the round, a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player).

4. Consideration for Players

A spectator must not in any way disturb a player.

B. Spectator Participation

A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the director."

Newwhist (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you: Your edit Special:Diff/821114477/821116698 was a better solution than mine. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Universal Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Universal love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you tried to review and enhaance my edits to Sentinelese article. Thanks for that. Bot kicked out one of my edit here. I had tried to replace two youtube video with a new youtube video). Please watch that video in my bot-reverted edit. Of you find it useful, please find a way to have it included as a repalcement of the existing two videos.

I am still making some more edits. I would be done in another hour or so. Please review/enhance those edits too when you have time. Meantine you might like to read this enjoyable interview with Mr Pandit (I have tried to include its essence in my edits). Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help in rescuing some of my edits from the bot-revert. I am done with the article, for now. Please do your magical review/enhancements/rephrasement/etc once you have time. Good night. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was in the midst of placing text/ citations from the lede into the body of the text in this article as I began a c/e requested from the Guild of Copy Editors. These were stopped by an edit conflict. Are you going to continue to work on this article or can I make the changes I was going to make to the article, and then return your changes afterwards, and continue with my c/e? Thanks Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Update: Replaced text with my changes and restored you edits. I have tagged the article to avoid further edit conflicts while I continue the c/e. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for adding a line about the first Magdalen Hall to the Hertford College article. I have added similar details to the Magdalen article.TSventon (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for responding to my post and adding the info on King George II death section. Uriel welsh (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Nicholas' Church, Durham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I use to be a admin here. I see Baloney gave you PC rights. Congrats, now you can use your PC tools to decline any edit that C, ass,i ant0 or his hooligan buddies make (when i was granted PC rights in 2012, being able to decline edits made by C, Jeeano and Fat Eric made me so high , only my meds could have made me higher. User:Kevyn Gourmaine (my last name in French — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.207.242 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as you no doubt are aware, we need balance as regards the allegations of antisemitism in this BLP How do you see we can achieve this? Leutha (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Exactly as that section says: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all." So we need to reflect what is in reliable secondary sources. If there are contrary viewpoints in those sources, we need to include them; but JVL's self-published views I think come under the "small minorities" clause - they are not a significant organisation. TSP (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam Green (councillor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Green (councillor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@TSP Hi, you are saying that "Morsi died during a court hearing on 17 June 2019." Did you personally take part in that hearing? Did you see him collapse and die during a court hearing? Did he literally collapse and die in there, in the court? If you don't know this, it is better to say that he allegedly died during the court hearings. What's wrong with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv36 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC) @TSP You said yourself that he died during trial. Why then change those words into your own "during court hearings"?! Do you see the difference?Reply

Hi Bv36,

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If I had been there and seen it with my own eyes... that would be completely irrelevant. Wikipedia works by reporting what the reliable sources say.

Our sources don't feel the need to qualify the statement as "alleged", so we shouldn't either: that would inappropriately introduce an expression of doubt that is not in our sources.

We actually have a specific guideline on this word: MOS:ALLEGED.

Your arguments could apply to any statement on Wikipedia - "So-called Elizabeth II is allegedly Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. She was apparently born in London as the first child of the Duke and Duchess of York, and some say that she was educated privately at home." I wasn't there at her birth, I haven't seen her DNA results or birth certificate, I wasn't in her lessons. But we don't say that, because reliable sources are confident enough of these things to state them as fact.

That doesn't mean we have to use the precise words of our sources - indeed we shouldn't, as that carries the potential of plagiarism - but we should report the facts in the sources, with the same degree of confidence expressed in the sources. TSP (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Chad's College, Durham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Strang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Adekunle Adeyeye 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 real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ozar77 14:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Chad's College, Durham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francis Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The file File:MarcusMillerHat.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rudolph von Ripper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Homeward Bound (Simon & Garfunkel song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warrington railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ushaw College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lanchester.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to Spitting Image, I have learned the name of one Brit from Durham, so I have logically concluded he's your dad. This hypothesis seems to have a slight aetatis suae problem, but I'm working on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am extremely happy to confirm that this is not the case (though, entirely coincidentally, I have met his father-in-law). Neither my parents nor I have felt any temptation to drive to Bishop Auckland to test our eyesight. TSP (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Now this rings a distant bell. Oh yes, I actually had an opinion on that: Talk:Barnard_Castle#Dominic_Cummings. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Infobox residential college/font color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Infobox residential college/university color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kbabej (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed the content because most of it had to do with the general topic of plate numbers, not plate number coils, and it wasn't referenced anyway. Which I said in my edit comment. While I agree that it's not great to have a blank article, it isn't any better to have one that's completely off-topic and/or un-referenced. So I'd appreciate if you either found a good middle ground or restored my edit. Really, I wonder why you reverted me when it should be obvious that un-referenced material can be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, TSP. Thank you for your work on Queen's Campus, Durham University. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Infobox terrorist organization and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31 § Template:Infobox terrorist organization until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello TSP. As I expressed in the List Talk Pgae - Welcome, and thank you for all your input. It's good to have some interest shown. However, I'm not so keen on your use of the "Edit summary" line to issue instructions/orders? to me. They do read like that - why not use the List's Talk page? I've adopted most of your 'suggestions', but please be aware that I am an 82-year-old with failing sight. I have built this list out of love for the subject, but I'm not a technically adept "Wikipedian" and I'm too old to learn all the tech stuff. You asked/ordered me to frovide evidence for Leicester St Nicholas probably having been the A-S cathedral. But then, when I'm about to add that evidence (from VCH) I find you've beaten me to it. If you have all the time and ideas I feel like leaving you to it!ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @ShopshirePilgrim:

I apologise for ambiguity in my edit summaries. None of them are intended as orders! They are just as the name suggests - summaries of my edits. So when I write in an edit summary, "Add a new source", I don't mean, "I am ordering you to add a new source", I am saying, "In this edit, I add a new source" - as you discovered, when you went to add said source and found that I already had.

You will hopefully find that the summary attached to each of my edits matches up with what I did in that edit. I have never sought to order you to do anything; I have no authority or intention to do so. I will think about the tense in which I express these summaries; but in any case, if you regard them as edit summaries, as intended, all will hopefully become clear.

If I had requests, suggestions or matters for discussion, as you say, I would make them on the Talk page, as I have done.

For what it's worth, I have made 12 edits to the page; in the same time, you have made approaching twice as many, so I'm not sure 'avalanche' is quite apposite.

What I had hoped was happening was that we were collaboratively editing the page - with myself as very much the junior partner, but with what I hope is some helpful insights from practice elsewhere in Wikipedia. TSP (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted! I now understand your remarks, but the tense you use is wrong - for example, if you have added the reference to show St Nicholas' church Leicester was probably the Anglo-Saxon cathedral, then say "added" (= done) rather than "add" (= do). If I know you've done the task I won't think you're asking/telling me to do it!

Yes, I know I've responded with another avalanche, stimulated by your suggestions. I've just removed a lot of the 'More at .......' links which you didn't like and I agree were unsightly

Believe me, I am grateful for your interest, It's been a solitary task so far. I've put a note on the List;s Talk page asking anyone for evidence of the Cuncaster name you used for the fort at Chester-le-Street. Do you have evidence, as the name is totally unknown to Google? ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ShropshirePilgrim: Our page on the church has "Cunecaster or Conceastre" - I seem for some reason to have taken a middle ground between the two, it should probably be corrected to one or the other! TSP (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have been implementing some changes to the infoboxes of colleges at the University of York, which is certainly appreciated!

My query is how closely the order of positions in the infobox should reflect the order of position on the colleges web pages. You have been implementing changes to place the 'Principal' at the top, an order that I can understand, but all of the colleges with the position of 'Principal' place the 'Manager' and sometimes the 'Administrator' above it.

If you have any other recommendations for the colleges pages I'm also happy to implement them Stuart Newmanite (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Stuart Newmanite: Thanks! I don't know the intricacies of the York college system all that well (I know the Durham system very well and the Cambridge and Oxford ones a bit less so) but I have had quite a bit to do over the years with Template:Infobox residential college, especially trying to keep it used in a reasonably consistent way.

I was basing the order on the assertion at Colleges of the University of York#Organisation and governance that the Principal or Provost (is there a difference, incidentally, or is it just different names?) is the "Head of College" - that suggests to me they should be listed first. I don't think we need to follow the order on the college website.

My impression is that the Principal/Provost is the nominal head of the college but that is to some degree ceremonial, and the Manager runs it day to day? I think it makes sense all the same to list Principal first, if the university's position is that they are the titular college head, even if there is someone else who is the primary de facto leader (just as Template:Infobox university lists Chancellor before Vice-Chancellor - which seems an even clearer case where the latter is the day-to-day leader). TSP (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The contents of Colleges of the University of York#Organisation and governance is a bit outdated, so I'll update it now. As far as I can tell, the role of Principal was introduced in 2015 to replace the Provost and no colleges have retained the position of Provost. However, your logic to place the Principal first makes sense. Stuart Newmanite (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your work, will learn from my mistake, regards. Hogyncymru (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Another editor and I were musing that there are very (very) few editors with a simple three letter acronym as a user name. You are one of these Illuminati  .

So I would like to invite you to add join the club by adding your initials to the list at user:JMF#TLA editors club. The only benefit is the right to use {{User Wikipedian TLA club}} on your user page.

NB that the Groucho Marx criterion applies and you can ignore this invitation without a second thought. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § Category:Libraries by year of establishment on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Open Road (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donovan Leitch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear TSP, With regards to your recent edit of the opening paragraphs of the article on "Waltzing Matilda".

While I appreciate what you are saying about the lead paragraph, I cannot agree that your edit improves it. I have no choice but to undo your changes.

The story of “Waltzing Matilda” is very complicated and only a very small part of the story can be included in the opening paragraphs. The material on the relationship between “Thou Bonny Wood of Craigie Lee” and Christina’s melody is treated in detail in later sections of the article. It is well known and I do not think that it is necessary to have it in the opening paragraphs.

In the opening paragraph, I tried to describe briefly the changes in the song from Christina Macpherson to Harry Nathan and to Marie Cowan. These are not well known but are fundamental to the history of the song. Without mentioning copyright, I have written the paragraph so that those who understand the issues will understand how they apply to “Waltzing Matilda”. The melody of “Waltzing Matilda” that we sing today is Harry Nathan’s. He applied for copyright on the song under Queensland law in 1902. I understand that his application was not successful. He published his song very late in 1902. His version of the song does not seem to have been popular. James Inglish’s desire to use “Waltzing Matilda” as an advertising jingle is fundamental to the early spread of the song. Marie Cowan retained Nathan’s melody and gave it a new accompaniment. Cowan rightly claimed only to be the arranger. Her “Waltzing Matilda” is a cover of Harry Nathan’s. The dates quoted in the paragraph show that this is possible and the reference by David Crowden highlights this. The award of copyright to the descendants of Marie Cowan is very controversial.

Dear TSP, your edit removes a lot of valuable material. Do you understand copyright? Can you read music and play a musical instrument? While I appreciate what you tried to do, I don’t think that you succeeded.

Yours sincerely, BDW 82.

Hi BDW82,

Thanks for your message.

I think, unfortunately, you are mistaken about the purpose of the lead section of a Wikipedia article, and about the purpose of Wikipedia itself.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. - WP:LEAD

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - WP:NPOV

You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. - WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

You seem to be saying that the origin of the tune should be left out of the lead, because it is well-known and widely written about elsewhere; whereas the minutiae of the publication and copyright status of different versions of the tune in 1902 and 1903 must be included in the lead, because it is controversial and not widely covered elsewhere.

This is precisely the wrong way around. The lead is the place for a general overview of the most important facts about the song for a reader who may be unfamiliar with the topic, and which facts are important should be guided by their prominence in published sources. It is not the place for detailed breakdowns of specific parts of its history; particularly if those are controversial and not widely covered or universally agreed upon by sources; and triply so if the viewpoint you are seeking to emphasise disagrees with most sources or with legal rulings.

Yes, I have knowledge of copyright and can both read music and play instruments; but those are not really relevant to this question, given that in all things what gets included in Wikipedia must be guided by what is in the published sources, not by editors' own analyses of the facts.

Your reply above suggests that your aim in editing the article is to make the point that, contrary to legal rulings, the copyright of the song should belong to Harry Nathan not to Marie Cowan?

I'm afraid that is completely inappropriate as an approach to editing Wikipedia - please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia content is always guided by published sources. It is not the place for you to push your own views or agenda. That isn't to say that copyright questions and controversy can't be mentioned in the article, but a detailed explanation of why your particular point of view on them is the correct one is not appropriate for the lead; especially if it is at the expense of even mentioning basic facts like the origin of the tune. TSP (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BDW82: Having reviewed the edit, I'd also be curious to know which parts of my changes you actually found objectionable? My edits were:

• Cutting down the lyric summary to simply summarise the plot of the song, rather than explaining the meaning of every word, which seemed excessive for the lead
• Adding a mention that the tune was based on "Craigielee"
• Making the description of the 1902-3 events more concise, largely without changing the content - e.g. in Sydney tea merchant, James Inglis, wanted to use "Waltzing Matilda" as an advertising jingle for Billy Tea. In early 1903, Inglis purchased the rights to 'Waltzing Matilda' and asked Marie Cowan, the wife of one of his managers, to try her hand at turning it into an advertising jingle. - it isn't necessary to say in one sentence that he wanted to use it as an advertising jingle, then in a second sentence that he hired Cowan to turn it into an advertising jingle - the fact he wanted to do that is clearly indicated by the fact that he paid her to do it.
• Removing an assessment that Cowan's arrangement is "very catchy", which is sourced simply to the sheet music of the arrangement so is inappropriate WP:original research
• Cutting down some narrative about the various versions including removing the description of Cowan's changes to "Nathan's melody" as "very minor" - I suspect from your comments this is the bit you actually object to?

Per WP:REVERT, Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. [...] If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.

I'd appreciate it if you could be a bit more nuanced in your approach and clarify which parts of my edit you actually have a problem with. TSP (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your courteous and comprehensive reply. I realize that it was wrong for me to simply hit the undo button. My apologies.

Before I address the issues that you raise, I would like to explain where I am coming from when I edited the third lead paragraph.

While the information in the Infoblox at the beginning of the article on WM is accurate, it is very misleading. Many musicians do not realize that the original music of WM written in 1895 is quite different from the music published in 1903. This can be seen clearly in uploads of WM on YouTube. This is a pity. The rationale of how I edited the third opening paragraph of the article was to describe clearly the steps in process of from Christina’s melody to Harry Nathan’s arrangement and finally to Marie Cowan’s. I know that this is unorthodox but I believe that the accuracy of information in the opening section of the article should not be secondary to orthodoxy.

• I certainly do not have a problem with your adding, The original lyrics were composed in 1895 by Australian poet Banjo Paterson, to a tune played by Christina MacPherson based on her memory of Thomas Bulch's march Craigielee, which was in turn based on James Barr's setting for Robert Tannahill's poem "Thou Bonny Wood of Craigie Lee".

• I did not say that Inglis hired Marie Cowan to turn it into an advertising jingle. I do not know where you get the information from that he paid Cowan to do it. What evidence do you have that she was paid? It is certainly not in the references.

• You are accurate when you say that I was unhappy by your “Cutting down some narrative about the various versions including removing the description of Cowan's changes to "Nathan's melody" as "very minor" - I suspect from your comments this is the bit you actually object to?” I find the omission of this quite objectionable.

TLC, if you are not concerned about the misleading Infobox, I will be very disappointed but I am not going to revert any accurate, referenced changes that you make in the future. The misleading Infobox has bugged me for the last 4 years so I hope that you make very few, if any, changes to my edit reading, “The first published setting of "Waltzing Matilda" was Harry Nathan's on 20 December 1902. Nathan wrote a new variation of Christina MacPherson's melody and changed some of the words.[3] Sydney tea merchant, James Inglis, wanted to use "Waltzing Matilda" as an advertising jingle for Billy Tea. In early 1903, Inglis purchased the rights to 'Waltzing Matilda' and asked Marie Cowan, the wife of one of his managers, to try her hand at turning it into an advertising jingle.[4] Cowan made some more changes to the words and some very minor changes to Nathan's melody and gave the song a simple, brisk, harmonious accompaniment which made it very catchy.[5] Her song, published in 1903, grew in popularity, and Cowan's arrangement remains the best-known version of "Waltzing Matilda".[6][7]

I hope that this helps us understand each other. Yours sincerely, BDW82.

Dear TSP, thank you for taking the time and making the effort to understand my point of view.

Could you please help me with an edit that I have been unable to make in the infobox of the article on “Waltzing Matilda”? I have tried to give the title, “Christina Macpherson’s Waltzing Matilda” to the audio file in the infobox. I have tried without success. If it is possible, are you able to do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDW82 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added a description, as that's quick to do, I'll come back to the above discussion when I have a little more time.

I am curious about the sourcing for these audio samples. The melody on the "Christina Macpherson" version in the infobox doesn't quite correspond to the manuscript above it (for example, the rhythm is reversed on 'billabong'). It also has chords and arrangement whereas the sheet music is only melody. Is this reflecting a different manuscript?

Similarly the arrangement on the 'Nathan' version doesn't seem the same as the sheet music, with chords on offbeats rather than onbeats.

In general if the samples are intended to illustrate particular arrangements, it would be useful if they were exactly the same as the sourced sheet music, without added instrumentation. TSP (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for for adding the title to the audio file. I think that it clarifies the information in the infobox. I appreciate what you have done.

I am happy to discuss the interpretation of the manuscript left by Christina Macpherson. Read the section on "Christina's Manuscripts" later in the article. This topic is NOT simple.

I am not aware of chords on the offbeats in the 'Nathan' version. The chords are are only on the 1, 2, 3, 4 beats as in the manuscript. The piano part in the audio file of the 'Nathan' version is note for note from the manuscript. Nathan's arrangement had a unique chord progression and his manuscript is notated, "Music arranged and harmonized by Harry A Nathan."

Similarly, the notes in the Marie Cowan version are note for note from the published arrangement.

Thank you for granting my request, BDW82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDW82 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply