Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:20, 15 August 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Barnabypage, 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:

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! -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

homeopathy

Hi there and welcome to wikipedia. I apologise for overwriting your previous edits. The other contributions were too major for a manual revert. Feel free to join the discussion page and get stuck in. PhatRita 14:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Barnabypage 16:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crossword clues

Hi Barnaby,

I saw your changes to my sample cryptic clues at Crossword and think they are an improvement. Thanks for your contribution. --HappyDog 06:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I'm sure someone else will be along soon to improve on them further! Barnabypage 14:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hello Barnaby. Thanks for tidying up my edits on the Suffolk article. As Dutch is my native tongue this is really helpful, Best Wishes, Antiphus 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - your English is much better than my Dutch! Barnabypage 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Hey Barnaby, well done on your edits so far, particularly in the 2006 Ipswich murder investigation article. However, could I ask you to add an edit summary to your modifications so that other editors can quickly and easily see what you've edited and why you've edited it? Cheers! Budgiekiller 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject PipeOrgan

Hi,

Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan has now been created. Feel free to assist in the creation of the project page, and then we can get started!

Best,

MDCollins (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Ipswich

Why do you keep removing the comment regarding the Unitarian Meeting House ? -- Ratarsed 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I removed read (in the context of the Willis Faber building): "ironically standing right next to one of the oldest extant buildings in Ipswich, the Unitarian Meeting House, which is also Grade I listed".

I removed it because (a) there are many buildings in Ipswich older than the Unitarian Meeting House so it isn't "one of the oldest" in any very meaningful sense, and therefore (b) there's nothing particularly ironic about it either.

Incidentally, your edit summary of your later edit referred to the Ancient House being older, so I thought you had restored the Unitarian Meeting House comment by accident. Barnabypage 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary was because I misread your as "Unitarian meeting house is (by) far ~~from~~ oldest bldg in Ipswich, also general clean-up". Anyways, perhaps ironic isn't the right word, maybe "juxtaposed" or similar would be better; however, your edit does remove a link to the article on the Unitarian Meeting House, which is why I intentionally reinstated the link. For the record there are approximately 300 older buildings that are listed in Ipswich (hard to say for sure, as the date ranges on Images of England go 15 years after the build date). -- Ratarsed 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yes, I agree the Meeting House (not to mention the Ancient House) does deserve a mention. Perhaps the article would benefit from an overview architecture section like the article for Norwich (among many others) has. I'd be happy to work on this with you - if you don't get around to adding it I'm sure I will sooner or later!

Incidentally, the figure of 300 surprised me a bit, but I guess there's probably quite a lot of timber-frame lurking behind some later facades. Barnabypage 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never underestimate the number of Norman churches... Of course, I seem to remember that Ipswich was granted its town charter a little over 400 years ago, and as such, there are a lot of Tudor, Elizabethan and Jacobean buildings leading up to the Stuart period of the meeting house. I think that a section (or even a whole article) on the architecture of Ipswich could certainly be interesting right up to the present day (having the most modern Grade I listed building, as well as the more progressive designs used by the volume builders on Ravenswood. Not got the time at the moment to start it right now, but will certainly try and do something "soon". -- Ratarsed 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly - it was the churches that first came to mind, and then I realised that given so much visible C15-17 timber-frame exists, there must be a lot more hidden. My personal architectural interests are inclined to the (late) C18 and later, but I'm sure we can get at least some temporary content up in the next week or two. A swift paraphrase of Pevsner, if nothing else. Barnabypage 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created a really stubby fragment at User:Ratarsed/Architecture of Ipswich -- feel free to add to this -- Ratarsed 11:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fair bit of research, and fleshed out User:Ratarsed/Architecture of Ipswich -- feel free to contribute to this; I'm not quite sure if it flows right, or if it's at risk of just turning into a history of Ipswich? -- Ratarsed 21:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cix page

Just out of curiosity, are you cixen?

Yes - barney2@cix. Don't use it a great deal these days, though. And you? Barnabypage 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Blog" Link

Before deleting links from me please read the discussion page of the article! -> UAE. Thanks larsdominic

Aside

Just wanted to say that I'd be more than happy to help out with Ipswich articles if you need anything. I've added a few photos to Portman Road and living not-too-far-away makes it easy for me to add to things, particularly image-wise. Let me know if there's anything I can help with. All the best. The Rambling Man 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly intruding a bit, but you could keep an eye on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Suffolk -- there's currently an outstanding request for the Unitarian Meeting House (next to the Willis building) -- Ratarsed 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Witch talk

It's protocol to place new comments under that which was posted earlier, to preserve continutity of conversation. I think that if you were addressing your comments specifically to Jussen, you could have done so on his talk page; any comments posted in Discussion can be addressed by anyone. Preserving a chronological order makes the discussion easier to navigate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...it's not the practice I've observed on many, many talk pages, where comments are nested, making the pattern of comment-comment much clearer than if they were purely chronological. It's like threading on BBSes (he says, hoping there's a Wiki article on threading). But anyway, let's not let that distract us from the question at hand re Blair Witch Project. And - thanks for getting in touch about it. Barnabypage 00:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that dupe posting is tedious but, as I had not watchlisted your page, I would have missed your comment. I have seen some of these pages where folk either forget or go crazy with the indents and where they post and whatnot. That can be extremely daunting (and a little intimidating) for the newer user, so a chronological order (or breakingup into specific sections) is not only easier to follow, but provides clear access for people to post new comments. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you wouldn't, because I took care to mention it on your own Talk page for precisely that reason. But IKWYM! Barnabypage 01:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the UK

You may be interested in (and I hope may wish to participate in) Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom - do please take a look. --Smerus 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed - Grammar and Style Clean-up

Hi, I came across your user page, because of your user templates. You seem to be very interested in correct English grammar and in good style of writing. The article to affiliate marketing just failed the nomination as good article after a lot of work, because of style and grammar issues. I did a lot of the tweaking and cleaning, but English is my second language and my grammar and style are not flawless and certainly not enough to meet the standards of a good article. I tried to mobilize some editors at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics without success. I would really appreciate, if you might have a look at the article and could fix some of the grammar and style issues. The facts and references are already there, so you don't have to be knowledgeable about the subject of the article. Let me know, if you are interested to help. Thank you for your time and consideration. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essex discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description: A project for the county of Essex, England

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Comments

Maybe you could try Category:Wikipedians from Essex and also place notices e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject England. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, who are you exactly?

IIRC there was a Barnaby Page working on CRASH (as "Lloyd Mangram" a lot of the time), and possibly on other Newsfield mags as well; are you he by any chance?

(I hope this question isn't an invasion of privacy; it's not intended to be.) 217.171.129.69 (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's me. (Though I wasn't actually Lloyd that often.) My email is firstname@fullname.com if you want to discuss. I suppose I should now ask who YOU are! Barnabypage (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe organ FA nomination

Hello… I think we're ready for another FA nomination at Pipe organ. I've just completed a pretty thorough copyedit… is there anything else you might want to change before we proceed? —Cor anglais 16 23:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Immediately.

~~This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did at Talk:The Blair Witch Project, you will be blocked for disruption. -- Bongwarrior (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't vandalise the page - as the edit history shows. Barnabypage (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed this. The above warning was left by an impostor, not by me. Sorry for any confusion, take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Barnabypage (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Witch edits

Regarding your post here and re-addition here, I think that, at best, the statement is misleading. With the synopsis as vague as it is (and yes, that will be addressed later), it would appear that Heather is apologizing to Justin Parr's victims as well. As per the specific conversation from the citation you offered (pertinent part in bold):

Heather: I just want to apologize to Mike's mom and Josh's mom and my mom and I'm sorry to everyone. I was very naive. (Looks away from camera scared) I was very naive and very stupid and I shouldn't have put other people in danger for something that was all about me and my selfish motives.

I'm so sorry for everything that has happened because in spite of what Mike says now it is my fault. Because it was my project and I insisted on everything. I insisted we weren't lost. I insisted we keep going. I insisted we walk south. Everything had to be my way and this is where we've ended up. And it's all because of me were here now hungry and cold and hunted. I love you mom and dad. I am so sorry. It was never my intention to hurt any one and I hope that's clear.

(Begins to hyperventilate as mucus streams from her nostrils) I am so scared. What was that? I'm scared to close my eyes and I'm scared to open them. I'm going to die out here. Every night we just wait for them to come. (Breaks down and sobs) ¹

I think a better way to write the caption would be:

Heather's oft-imitated taped apology.

This is succinct without rendering an opinion about whatever danger they are in. Since the fate of the three is left intentionally vague, we don't know what sort if any danger the characters were in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the use of the world "children" could possibly lead a reader to deduce a reference to Parr's victims and that your alternative is less likely to be misconstrued. As to danger, I suppose one could argue that anyone lost in the woods for several days without much in the way of supplies is prima facie in danger, witches or no witches - but I really don't think this is a big enough deal to waste time arguing about it! So thanks for taking the time to come up with a suitable alternative. Barnabypage (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I am happy we could find a suitable alternative. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PipeOrgan needs you!

Hi everyone.

In case you haven't spotted it, Pipe organ is a featured article candidate. If any of you can lend a hand to address the concerns, the WikiProject PipeOrgan would be indebted to you. The article itself is in pretty good shape, there are some concerns about the referencing at the moment, so if you have any reliable sources that may be useful, please have a look at the article.

Many thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland Echo

Hi Barnaby - Just a quick response to your question on this article's talk page. Nope, no archive talk - what you see is what you get! (And that was only added this week!) All the stuff relating to peer review, FA etc was kept in those places - nothing spilled onto the talk page at all. The peer review stuff is here: [1] and this is the FA stuff: [2]. As you will see, I didn't take it to GA, but went straight for FA. (Well, I did go to GA, but it spent so long hanging round on the waiting list that I decided to try FA instead, as the response there - criticism/positive feedback/help/guidance etc - is swift....If exhausting soemtimes!) Good luck with your newspaper articles. I found this article quite tricky, as there was no format to follow. Only one other newspaper is an FA, but that is a biggie in America, so not the same thing.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 18:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piers Morgan

Why would you remove my addition to Piers' support for Arsenal FC? I backed all quotes up from an article he has attributed his name to in the Daily mail.

Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauloluisimo (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks, that goes some way to explaining your actions.[reply]

Although, as I am completely new to Wikipedia editing perhaps you could explain why you wouldn't suggest that it needs expanding upon, as opposed to completely removing it? The fact that he made the mistake is in fact rather significant, as he continues to make reference as to how much of a true follower of Arsenal FC he is....

I'm sorry, but you in fact appear to be dealing in opinions where i have dealt in facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauloluisimo (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future of newspapers

I did not realize there had been consensus on the subject, good luck with the article! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global

Hi, yes, I agree about the global thing, and I intend to get to it as soon as I can. (Trying to juggle a few things here at once.) Thanks for creating the piece, and for your input. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Future of newspapers

On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Future of newspapers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. If you hadn't been WP:BOLD and just created the article, we might still be discussing the title. Great job. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books and such

Hello BarnabyPage. Thank you for the notice about the books, and heck, I don't give a hoot about breaking wiki guidelines. lol. I'm not interested in the volumes right now but they sound great, and it does sound like we have overlapping interests. I notice you went to the University of East Anglia. Is that where you're from? I don't know your friend here in Seattle. Most of my time in the trenches of journalism was spent elsewhere, in other larger American cities, but this is fine for now. I noticed at one point that you said you were recuperating from surgery. I hope that you're feeling better. Thanks again for getting the 'Future' piece up and running, and I look forward to collaborating with you again. Take care and best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be interested in the books. Located in New York City. — Becksguy (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe organ GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Pipe organ for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category Deletion Discussion -- Italian Americans

Pls note that there is a category deletion discussion re Italian Americans afoot at [3]--Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (Internet)

Is the edit POV? Yes. We can say the paragraph above is POV as well. I have not found a reference on the web to this content, yet. If there would be one, maybe the label "troll" would disappear. I think if we follow wp:common sense we can include this. Will try to get reliable source to confirm. Igor Berger (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleting wcpr reference

haha same could be said about you?

The reference adds to the article, shows the prestige of the paper by being included in the well regarded WCPR. If you feel it was misplaced in the introduction, then moving it to another part of the article wouldn't be an issue. Simple deleting the sentence has no benefit. (KSTP31 (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there and thanks for getting in touch with me on this issue. I'm afraid that (a) I don't agree that WCPR's prestige is sufficient to add perceptibly to a major national newspaper's, and (b) I worry that we would then find the articles clogged up with endless lists of other publications, databases, syndication services, digest services etc. etc. that also include or summarise each paper's content.

But since we're probably not going to agree on this, I suggest that we take the discussion to the Talk page on one of the articles in question, and apply whatever consensus is reached there to the whole lot of them. How does that sound to you? Barnabypage (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you as well. I have only stated the WCPR is well regarded and this is due to its consumer base as well as other reasons. I understand your view and suggest to keep it as it is and if, as you say we start to see it being clogged with other 'publications' we can of course look to remove it or relocate it to another part of the article. Howver, I don't believe this will happen and therefore your concern shouldn't be a problem. (KSTP31 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I don't think that really addresses my point (a), which is perhaps the more important one, so I'll tell you what - I'll take it to Talk on The Guardian (no particular reason for choosing that paper except that I know it's a reasonably well-edited article) and we'll see what happens. Barnabypage (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thats fine, I only included it due to the relevance of it to the paper. If you look back it was you that claimed the WCPR had prestige? (KSTP31 (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Uh, actually it wasn't - "shows the prestige of the paper by being included in the well regarded WCPR" was your phrase in the very first message of this discussion. But it doesn't really matter - let's not waste time arguing over who said what first! Barnabypage (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha exactly "prestige of the paper" ie The Guardian. Please check what you are saying before you run away with an idea, and I'm not the editor or related to the company I only subscribe to the service. Regards (KSTP31 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your implication, at least as I read it, was that WCPR had prestige because it added to The Guardian's. Or to look at it the other way round, if WCPR was completely non-prestigious, how would it add to The Guardian's prestige? Anyway. what matters is not what you said or I said on this page, but what the consensus of editors is. Barnabypage (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I apologize if you misinterpreted what was written, now you have admitted I didn't say that maybe trying to claim that I said it would 'add' to the prestige is further superfluous and untrue as I said 'show' which if you research has a completly different meaning. This has been blown out of proportion and it was only meant to be a harmless addition to the article. I have therefore changed it as you wished due to your extreme reaction on the issue. You will find, however, this has been fairly trivial issue and something not to get too worried about. Regards and enjoy your evening (KSTP31 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

message =

ok thats fine, why do you insist that "you've spoken to the editor" when I've made it blatently clear that I am not that person? I don't understand your little reasons for this, but if I'm not allowed to question your lies then ok I understand. You being incorrect is something Ive become accustomed to.

(The above message was from KSTP31 - I inadvertently removed their signature.)

On Wikipedia, editor is the term usually used to describe somebody who contributes to - edits - the encyclopedia. It's in that sense that I used the word. (As I did make clear in one of my edit summaries when the lightbulb went on and I realised you believed I believed you were the editor of WCPR.) Seeing as you're new to Wikipedia, I do appreciate that you might not have been aware of this, or have yet had the time to read WP:CIV. Barnabypage (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:Reliable sources

I accidentally deleted a comment of yours on there a few minutes ago. It was reverted thankfully, but I wanted to let you know that it wasn't my intention. I was editing from my blackberry and I somehow didn't get any notice of an edit conflict. On an unrelated note, you may want to move your comment to the bottom of the discussion so that people can reply to it more easily. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and good idea - I'll do that. Barnabypage (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web Gallery of Art

Sorry for being late. I want add the following information in the article Peter Fendi:

After the death of his father in 1814, Fendi was forced to leave the Akademie and become a clerk to earn his living, although he still received occasional lessons.

It is mentioned here. Since Web Gallery of Art is not reliable, I need to to use other source to back up this claim. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I managed to do a little reading on Fendi today and could find nothing to substantiate the assertion that he left the academy prematurely, and in fact Norman suggests he left in 1813 not 1814 - so if his father died in 1814 the two events cannot have been effect and cause. I couldn't, however, establish exactly what he did do between 1813 and taking the job at the Imperial Gallery in 1818.

I have added to the article a number of general points that I gleaned from my reading. Thanks for - accidentally - introducing me to an interesting artist, new to me! Barnabypage (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse slip

I apologize for the revert. I was trying to do something else and my mouse slipped. CopaceticThought (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It happens. I'm impressed that you apologised! Barnabypage (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DocOfSoc (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Clarets Chronicles

Thanks for the offer of adding citations to the Inglis book. I don't know which statements were deemed to be contentious, although I would imagine that "Turf Moor became the first senior football ground to be visited by a member of the British Royal Family" was one of them. However, I'm currently working on a couple of different articles now, but if I do return to improve the Turf Moor article, I won't hesitate to ask you. Cheers, Big Dom 20:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksThanks for your input at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Your_opinion_please.... Do you think that two respondents who think the map is not WP:OR is sufficient consensus to restore the map? Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Given that there's been recent input on the discussion I think it would be best to ask this question directly on the NOR Noticeboard page. Barnabypage (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Scottish Review of BooksI'm afraid your recent edit to the RSN concerning the Scottish Review of Books deleted a number of posts, which I've restored. I've also answered your question about which Alastair McIntosh wrote that review. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 294: / Line 294: @@
 :Given that there's been recent input on the discussion I think it would be best to ask this question directly on the NOR Noticeboard page. [[User:Barnabypage|Barnabypage]] ([[User talk:Barnabypage#top|talk]]) 17:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
+==Scottish Review of Books==
+I'm afraid your recent edit to the RSN concerning the ''Scottish Review of Books'' deleted a number of posts, which I've restored. I've also answered your question about which Alastair McIntosh wrote that review. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 16:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)