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

Hi Timrollpickering. You reverted my edit to Robin Hood as vandalism. I can understand that it looks that way to you, but I feel this is a different situation. While RC patrolling I saw the original edit [1]. First I googled on the term and found that this name is indeed connected to Robin Hood and not present in the article. At that point I couldn't classify the edit as vandalism anymore. So I added the references that I found so that other patrollers could see my results, eventually people watching the page could incorporate the new information properly in the article. In retrospect it would have been wiser to move the line to the talk page instead of leaving it at the top of the article. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, calling me a vandal however I didn't like.

Best Regards, Sander123 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Timrollpickering,

I guess you remember me. We had a nice discussion at King's College London discussion page. Anyway, today I am knocking you for a help regarding Wikipedia. I have been working at English Wikipedia since 2004 though I created my current ID in 2006 and since then trying to contribute in some selective areas but in a massive way. Specially, in University project and Bangladesh Project. Now, I want to take some new challenges and want to apply for Administratorship. Would you please tell me how do I apply for the adminship and what will be the necessary procedure? I have gone through the Request for Admin page but felt little bit puzzled. Hoping your help in this context.

Hope to see your message soon.

Regards, Niaz bd 13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Parliamentary Barnstar
		I, Sam Blacketer, award you this barnstar for your exceptional contributions to producing high quality articles about notable Parliamentarians of the inter-war period. Sam Blacketer 12:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 15:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Diez2 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The following rename has not occured yet: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_6#Category:Chicago_films. Please advise if I am incorrect on expecting a rename. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this comment but the problem seems to be resolved. From recollection this was listed as a "no bot" category as it required splitting and I guess there was nobody following the outcome who had the knowledge to split out the category, hence it took a while to implement. Timrollpickering 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"if it's Jonah, we're all doomed!" - What did you mean by that? Why was my vision scary? not that I want it to happen. 81.79.44.91 14:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lembit Öpik has an unfortunate reputation for being the "Backing of Death" in Liberal Democrat internal elections. Consequently he's aquired the nickname "Jonah" and a lot of people wonder if anything backed by Öpik is doomed. If he becomes Prime Minister heaven only knows what disaster will befall us! Timrollpickering 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Qm logo.gif. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Neeson.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tim, Please go ahead with your suggested correction about his education. However, I notice that footnote 1 does not appear in the footnote list for some odd reason - maybe you can check that at the same time? The knock-on effect of this correction will also need to be copied to various other PM pages in wiki because you now say five PMs rather than four. Maybe you will consider making those changes in due course. Up to you if you also add a few examples of who did not attend university at all. thanks again Peter morrell 10:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Added it. "Five" was an error stemming from someone's confusion over MacDonald. I can't see what the problem with the first footnote is. Timrollpickering 11:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I now see it has suddenly disappeared! However the article is so fast-changing that maybe it can be put back in due course...not very urgent. thanks Peter morrell 09:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, what about the glass eye sentence? does he have a glass eye or what? It keeps getting put back in...thanks Peter morrell 13:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure the Sixth Doctor says "billion"

Ah, a long time after your period. Er, two billion years or more?

— Sixth Doctor, The Mysterious Planet, "Ep. 1"

Thanks, Will ^(talk) 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've seen, including several of the pieces (both episode guides and reviews) linked to from the page on the story - [2] [3] [4] - goes for "million" not "billion". And almost every chronology of the series before 2005 never even saw a possible problem about the story being dated after the events of The Ark (10 million years in the future), let alone tried to tackle it. (Of course The End of the World renders the issue semi-academic.) Timrollpickering 13:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, regarding your reversion of my change regards the status of the name of Glasgow University Student Nationalist Association I would be grateful if you could clarify your statement "don't rewrite other people's comments" as the premise on which you made the reversion. I replaced "Article suggests this actually was the title." with "actual title in use." I don't see this as a mere "rewrite" (in the sense that the two versions are equivalent) since the propositions are substantively different. Firstly because the original suggested doubt - mine does not (and does not because I know the true position as a matter of fact). Secondly because the original was written in the past tense. That is erroneous (or at least misleading) as there is still a Glasgow University Student Nationalist Association and it still operates under that title. Perhaps I have misunderstood Wikipedia etiquette, in which case I would be grateful for an explanation, but my understanding was that Wikipedians were encouraged to amend inaccurate or misleading information. Thanks. --Antisthenes 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

First off talk pages are different from articles and it is considered bad form to amend comments that have been made by another user as that is putting words into their mouth - it's better to post a comment underneath saying something like "to clarify....".

With regards the GUSNA, when I compiled that list, this was the-then current version of the that page. Note that there wasn't a link to a current GUSNA website and it was only towards the bottom of the page that anything even implicitly saying "this organisation is still in existance" comes into prominence. Note also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association is totally focused on its historic role and again wasn't saying much about it existing into the present day. Consequently the only information available at a glance was in a historic contect. (Also a lot of university political societies have collapsed with totally new replacements with the same names later springing up so it didn't immediately spring out that even if there is a GUSNA going today it was the same organisation.) Timrollpickering 19:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I made some major edits to the UUP history section, I'd appreciate you taking a look over it (please respond here)Traditional unionist 19:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Will look in detail at some point soon as I've been caught up with several things. So far it looks generally good although some names for the periods of history would be better than years. Timrollpickering 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Traditional unionist 11:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spamsara 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, further to your message on the above talk page, do you know how to move this page as described? Proteus seems to have found some way of blocking it, either that or I'm doing something wrong. Many thanks. lawsonrob 7 July 2007, 1848

Actually it appears Proteus got it to the correct title - see Clark's introduction in the Lords. "David Clark, Baron Clark" would be completely wrong. Timrollpickering 23:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim. As I've seen you editing it recently, I won't delete it but... do you think Virendra Sharma deserves an article at present? Whouk (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is frankly making things messy - luckily Wikipedia hasn't become another battleground in the election (yet). My edits were just to remove some factual inaccuracies and add the categories that were missing, but yeah this is premature. Timrollpickering 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, please can you cast your expert eye at this plea for help? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Monmouth_mess? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tim, it's me, David. Wonder whether you could give us a hand with something. Someone has posted an AfD tag on the University of St Andrews Students' Association page, and we've got a debate raging. The people arguing for deletion are, to my mind, very good at policy-speak sophistry, but not so hot on the old common sense or, indeed, engaging with their opponents. Would be great to have your input. Lordrosemount 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nice initiative at University of London article. I personally feel that this article should be improved. Constituent college articles are becoming featured article while university article is still at a B class level. I think, your initiative may change the picture now. keep working. Niaz bd 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we have started a new project: WikiProject_Bangladeshi_Universities. It would be really nice if you visit our activity and put your valuable comments on different aspects of improvements. Niaz bd 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You left a message on North East Wales Institute of Higher Education quite a while ago. wondered if you would like to have a look and see if you can give me any comments about how i can improve it as wikiproject universities is pretty quiet this time of year. I have done a lot to it loads in fact quite proud of it Delighted eyes 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Eliot College, Kent.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Sfan00 IMG 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Could you take a look at this page sometime and asses its notability or not. Apart from being a parliamentary candidate I can't see anything notable about this person and we don't normally even consider that notable enough normally. Thanks, Galloglass 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we ok to add other parliamentry candidates? Galloglass 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry, missed this. Yes go ahead. Timrollpickering 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Tim. :) Galloglass 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replied (twice) on the talk page of the article. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see reply. Simply south 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I like your comments on why we shouldn't number UK PMs. The US idea that you can be both 22nd and 24th President always strikes me as a little peculiar and I don't think we should adopt it here, certainly not by fiat at any case. Anyway, someone has well-meaniningly added numbers to a list of Chancellors which I feel is similarly misplaced: Gladstone has become Chancellor number 19, 22, 26 and 28! Wondered if you thought it worthy of commenting on, editing, etc, should this interest you. ¶ 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a question, that I thought you might have an answer to. I was putting in an infobox on the Arthur Henderson page. And I put that he was leader of the opposition until 1932, however he lost his seat in 1931 but remained party leader. So can you be leader of the opposition if you are not an MP? The Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom) page says that he only held the post in 1931. So I'm confused. G-Man ^? 00:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to be a party leader outside the Commons (although I believe the current Labour Party constitution requires its leader to be in Parliament so they'd automatically lose the leadership if they lost their seat).

I'm not sure if Leader of the Opposition was a clearly defined post in 1931-1932 - it wasn't salaried until 1937. So there may well have been confusion as to whether the LotO was Henderson (in 1906 Chamberlain briefly led for the Unionists in the Commons between Balfour losing his seat and finding another, but Chamberlain said he was speaking "on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition" meaning Balfour) or Lansbury (as the leader of the party in the Commons). Timrollpickering 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As regards my adding the Irish version of the name of the United Kingdom Unionist Party in the opening line of the article, I'd just like to say that I didn't intend it to be contentious. Páirtí Aontachtach na Ríochta Aontaithe is the official Irish language version according to focal.ie. Granted that the party in all probability do not use the Irish version at all, I still feel nevertheless that it should be included in the article as the term is actually used. If an Ulster-Scots version exists, that should be included as well, I believe. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that an "official Irish language version" used by the party for whenever it appears in Irish language media, an official translation by some UK government body, an official one by an Irish government body or official by whatever body regulates the Irish language? A lot of organisations insist that their name isn't translated in foreign languages and if UKUP is one then the Irish language version would be "United Kingdom Unionist Party", just as the English language version of "Sinn Féin" is "Sinn Féin".

I think it is messy to start adding translations in other languages in use in the province for the parties. Those like the SDLP who do make use of a language have an official sanctioned name in the language - a different thing from a translation even if it is the same words - and that should be shown, but translating every party name (and the name of every other organisation used) into every language used/recognised is potentially opening a can of POV worms, particularly when the status of the language itself is controversial (especially for the organisation in question). If not checked it could lead to a lot of UK articles having at least eight different names at the outset. Timrollpickering 16:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For tireless work with the thankless task of adding project and other classification boxes to great swathes of articles, and classifying those articles. Fiddle Faddle 12:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"<!-- do not add ", PhD" even when his degree is awarded in May 2008; academic titles are not included in Wikipedia intros -->"

Oh, you're no fun. But, you're right, of course. Terry Carroll 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I notice that Durham University Athletic Union is currently up for AFD on the grounds of non-notability. I seem to recall some time ago there was a discussion about whether students' unions were notable or not (as DUAU legally is one), or what the criteria for notability should be. Was any consensus ever achieved, only I can't remember where the discussion took place? DWaterson 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen any, bar individual AFDs which frankly aren't really going to resolve the overall issue one way or the other, especially when terms like "student organization" (sic) are thrown about, when current Wikipedia use of that redirect sends it to a page that doesn't encompass students' unions!

Individual AFDs are not a good place to thrash this one out as a) people demaning "external sources proving notability" is confusing the "inherently notable matter"; b) too often most people working on the articles only see the demand when the AFD has been initiated and such formal processes are a disincentive to make the effort in the limited window available and c) other pages on SUs are not coming in the perview - yes WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't the best of argument but that rejoinder gets overused and doesn't address the general question. Timrollpickering 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your thoughts. Perhaps a notability guideline for student organisations/clubs/societies/unions etc would be beneficial. Cheers, DWaterson 20:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want it kept, it may not be a good rhetorical strategy to discuss in advance what the closing admin should do if he deletes the article. :) DGG (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the en.wikipedia. If you wish to add portuguese content please do so at pt.wwikipedia. Adding portuguese content to en.wikipedia is completely unacceptable, SqueakBox 01:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Afd on Portuguese content? Lol, SqueakBox 01:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not Portugese content - the article is in English, all sources so far are from British news websites explaining the term. There is no clear equivalent of "Arguido" in English because the concept does not exist in most English language legal jurisdictions. Wikipedia includes articles on concepts that are primarily not found in the English speaking world but have gained notability and indeed generate confusion because they are not easily translated as the concept is not present in day to day English. Timrollpickering 02:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a translation of the Englsih word suspect, I am unhappy at putting a db on what should be a simple redirect but we dont explain foreign language words, its a no-brainer, and I strongly disagree that it isnt a direct translation, just because Portuguese law is slightly different does not justify your making up an article about a foreign language concept. Do we ahve an article on the word estar? No. And neither is there any justification for yor greatly expanding the wikipedia concept with no policy backing. Please desist, SqueakBox 02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a direct translation as has been shown by the sources cited. If it were then all the recent news would have simply stated that they were a "suspect". This is an article on a subject that primarily exists in Portugal and does not heavily exist in the English speaking world. Wikipedia has many such articles - look at Diplom for one - precisely because they are notable subjects and a key part of their notability is the difference from how things are done elsewhere in the world. "Arguido" is being used a lot precisely because it doesn't correspond to "suspect".

If you disagree with this reasoning, take it to AFD. Constantly redirecting the article and referring to "policy" is not useful. Timrollpickering 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How can i take it to afd whern you have locked the page, abusing your admin powers in the process (the worst admin abuse I have ever seen, edit warring and locking thje page to your version). Please unlock the page and I'll afd it but do so quickly, SqueakBox 02:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for briefly protecting the page was that every couple of minutes it was getting arbitarily reverted. Disputed pages should not be locked in redirect form. It has just been unblocked. Timrollpickering 02:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It was being reverted because that was what you were doing, and that is why your then locking the page was unacceptable, admins get powers to fix other people's edit wars, when they engage in their own and then use admin powers its a case for Rfc and Rfa (though as you reverted you lock quickly this case obviously wont be going anywhere) as using adnin powers to further one's own agenda is unacceptable practice, SqueakBox 02:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As you have abused your adnmin powers I'll take this to arbcom. Stop trolling, please, SqueakBox 02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That is better, now at afd, SqueakBox 02:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please state your argument on this issue. It is important and I believe your argument will be valuable for saving this article. Click here for the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Universities Debating Ranking Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.