User talk:PamD

Ah!

A google search of Wikipedia using "Nottingham University" and "rambling" got me here. If you're going to be editing in these parts, you should probably put a few (or many) (your choice!) words on your User: page, so that it doesn't appear as a red link when you edit something, and so that people who have something to say about your edits will have some idea of who they're dealing with. --GuillaumeTell 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - I hadn't twigged the "red link" point. Have now added a few words to create my User: page. --User:PamD 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Nottingham Hillwalking and Rambling Society

The random link led me there - I often look around when I'm otherwise not busy, cleaning up, tagging articles and general housekeeping. The subject of notability is often contentious - In this case, there is nothing in the article that establishes what makes the subject worthy of inclusion. The bar for notability is not particularly high - A few mentions in even local press is often adequate. The first pillar of Wikipedia is a good place. And welcome :) - Tiswas^(t/c) 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood, West Yorkshire

Thanks for setting up the page. 29 May 2007

Walking Stewart

Thanks for your kind message and for going to the trouble of creating the page in the first place! He's so interesting, I couldn't help adding what I know ... Thanks so much again! --Charleys2004 18:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rothwell, West Yorkshire

I'm happy to leave the page as it is, but could you please explain why my edit wasn't constructive. I'm not disputing this, but just for future edits, so I know not to go wrong. Thanks Pam. 80.44.211.219 08:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PamD's reply: I can't see my comment on your user page at address you're using today (if you're going to edit regularly it's easier all round if you register, rather than use an IP address). Were you perhaps the editor who changed Rothwell from "town" to "district", removed three paragraphs (Domesday book, market, band), and reverted to older less linked text about Priestley and the college, as 80.44.161.231 on 9 June at 19:44? Whether Rothwell is a town or not seems to be a matter on which there are different views, but it didn't seem helpful to remove all that other information - perhaps it was an editing accident? PamD 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's me. The removal of three paragraphs was accidental, and I didn't realise I'd done it until you let me know on your above edit, and so I checked the Rothwell history page. I do apologise. However, I think you are right about the difference of views as to wether Rothwell is a town or a district. I was to belive that over time, Rothwell had become a district of the main city, rather than a town in the metropolitan borough, but if this is not the case, then I do apologise, and feel free to leave the article with it being stated a town. Thanks again. 80.44.118.181 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titus Salt reference

Hi Pam. Thank you for adding a reference to the bottom of the Titus Salt article, but could you please use the current WP:CITE format with ref tags? If it isn't actually being used to cite any of the article text then we are better putting this into a "Further reading" section. Burntsauce 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PamD's reply:I didn't write the main article, so don't know whether the DNB article is source for much of it or not - though it certainly supports the ">100,000 people lining streets at funeral". I've put the ref into format, I think. Not sure how many specific references are needed from the body of the article, if any. PamD 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking your vote

Hello PamD,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

Leeds Parish Church

No problem. It's always a good idea to press the Preview button and check the blue links that you've created/amended before saving, though. A, aka GuillaumeTell 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1a page

Hi Pam—Thanks for your comments. Can't see where the formatting is large in the 1a article. Tony 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pam, but looks fine to me. I'll ask someone else to look. Tony 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pam—thanks for pointing out my blooper, and for the Guardian link, which I've posted here. I used to subscribe to the Guardian Weekly, but my Internet addiction has crowded that out! Tony 11:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Town Hall

There was a rather sprawling article about Town Hall which could not have been all copyright violation...I wrote a bit myself. As far as I remember, someone removed it and put in a more compact text which was apparently all borrowed.

I am glad you have written about the piano competition, by the way. --Alan 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article I deleted was marked and verified as a nearly word-for-word copy of http://www.leedscivictrust.org.uk/townhall.htm . So it was deleted. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no great expert on editorial issues, but I think it would have been better to go back to a previous version of the article, which would have included good material, rather than simply delete the offending version. --Alan 06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct action would have been to restore the version before the copyvio and delete all revisions after that, while examining the revisions to try and rescue good content. Total deletion was inappropriate. The deleting admin should have investigated further and discovered all this. Carcharoth 10:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you look at Talk:Leeds Town Hall#Timeline_of_Leeds_Town_Hall_article you can see the results of a bit of archaeological digging through the history! PamD 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1a page

Thanks for your correction, Pam. It's the redundancy exercises that are the most fertile ground for error-hunters! Tony 12:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version of proposed text on spacing at MOSNUM

Pam—Please reconsider your comment, if necessary: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Spacing. Tony 15:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]