User talk:Kbthompson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Theatre articles again

Hello, Kb.

Today, someone changed several headings in theatre articles so that the capitalisation does not conform to MOS. I changed it back to lower case and commented at Victoria Palace Theatre, but a different(?) anonymous user changed it back to upper. Do you want to do anything about it? I think this is a case of "[they] mean well, but [they] don't know!"(name that quote) Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good morning. If I have some time today - and can persuade my ISP to work properly - I'll do a quick run thru. Busy recently, trying to add refs to history pages and persuade people to some consistency in articles. Revisited the New London - added some past history. I noticed an anon-ISP but they seemed to be running through adding details of productions, so I wasn't too worried - they probably need knocking back a bit, removal of peacock words and other copyeds. Meanwhile, in real life, the cat herding has all gone awfully wrong and they're all wandering off in different directions. You'd expect intelligent people to be a little self directed and task orientated ... but they all agree to one thing and then discover they have their own agenda. A bit like wiki, really. Kbthompson 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I spent most of this morning going through them, on a general clearup - by the time I'd finished, he'd done some more! Left a welcome message, and directed to WP:MoS. Plus ca change Kbthompson 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're on fire! You're an editorial fool! You da bomb! But asking people for consistency in articles? Go for it, Don Quixote! -- Ssilvers 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope those are good things ... Any point in putting Vaudeville Theatre for GA status? I'd like to see what the process makes of a 'shorter' article. Most of the one's that go for GA, try for the 16-ounce steak approach, maybe it isn't necessary. Kbthompson 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, all bad! BTW, the answer is Dick Deadeye in H.M.S. Pinafore, Act I. Vaudeville?:

I don't think it's quite ready: It looks nice, but it is under-referenced; what was the theatre's main fare in the early days, aside from the few productions named? Comedy? Shakespeare? What happened from 1875 to 1889? The Dare sisters desperately need articles. They are both super notable. Only one production is mentioned between 1930 and 1955. That's a big gap! The period from 1970 to 1996 is a bit spare - only a few productions noted, even though there must be good records for this period. If we could fill in some of these gaps.... BTW, what do you think of the new list of 'recent productions'? Most of them are very short runs. Were the plays notable for any reason? It seems sort of a random reason to add a list unless it shows something significant about the recent era. Were these plays of a similar kind? Did the theatre management seek this sort of play? These are my thoughts. Together with three quid, they will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. -- Ssilvers 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where I live is a Starbux free zone (there literally are none, must be the last place on earth). My coffee is all supplied from the Algerian Coffee House in Soho, Colombian Medellin Excelsior. Reminds me, time for a trip to France to get my cheese ... Although they just issued the list of road closures for the 2012 Olympics construction - so, it looks like I ain't going nowhere for five years!

The list is rather too complete, but now you're beginning to sound like your nemesis. I don't know the who, why or what; but it certainly was a rush of changes, and although the format errors, pretty close to the required format. It's your sockpuppet and you're just creating work for me! Point taken about Vaudeville, but we're getting close. Time for dinner! Kbthompson 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Camden

Came to your site to see what you're up to in respect of the comments made at the Camden site in particular .re corruption and public housing. Is it OK to use this sort of language on Wikipedia and express such very "personal views"? I think it would be better if you remove the "s" word altogether, which many people would find offensive.

82.69.55.81 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I respectfully asked for PoV comments at that page to be justified. I don't know what you're on about - and this is the correct place for any messages; the correct place for debate is on that talk page. Kbthompson 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, With regards to the camden article: I agree that the article needs cleanup, that any material which shows PoV and would not be expected in an encyclopedia should be removed. I also agree with some of the edits made to do this. However the reason I reverted some of the changes is as some of the deleted sections (mainly with regards to parking) did not need to be deleted. Somone needs to go through the artcle and remove biographic and PoV material- but not just delete sections outright. 81.107.65.89 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the edits cannot remain in the state they were in. The correct procedure where articles, or parts of articles, contravene wikipedia policy is to just delete them. A libel is a libel, and not taking immediate steps to remove it is compounding the libel. I was actually cutting the guy far too much slack by asking him to verify what he had written and correct the manner in which it was written. Please note: I did not change a single word of it.

Everyone here is a volunteer, no one is paid. People do what they're interested in, and if it's important enough someone else will come along and write something that does follow the rules. If you try to help someone, and they then rant, rave and start name calling, then it is very unlikely you will be so-minded in the future. The situation is serious enough that it is now in administrator review. Kbthompson 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad times in Camden

Easily remedied by having a nice glass of wine, I know I will. MRSC • Talk 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I never drink alone, I'll count that as company. Currently making up the education lists at London Borough of Enfield. Kbthompson 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image:1600 Aldgate.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1600 Aldgate.jpg. I noticed that 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, then 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, then 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-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This was sorted too ... now archive! Kbthompson 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad Weeks in General

You had a bad week, Kb...? Just let you tell me about mine...Actually it's pretty tedious. Seem to have got caught up in one of wikipedia's longest and most boring revert wars, with the same guy I had a spat with on the Jack the Ripper article (let's just dub him 'Nightmare Guy', you probably know who I mean). He seems to be on the wiki 24/7 (locked in his room, having not left the house for the last 20 years, hair down to his knees...talons like finger nails...maybe...) and is currently ignoring a majority of 3 to one against him on the Talk Page of the article in question. Despite this he seems to have convinced himself that he is the ultimate embodiment and enforcer of the wikipedia 'rules', though it seems that he himself personally has got a license to interpret them in any way which suits him and also abrogate them, especially WIP:Civil, on whatever occasion seems necessary to him in pursuit of his power trip: like a combination of 007 and Judge Dredd. Basically he is just trying to grind us down with flummery, obstinacy and bluff. Just waiting for the appearance of an unregistered sock-puppet to make a magical appearance on said page. Anyway, no need for you to get involved...yet...though I might call on your aid if things start getting more than usually traumatic/stupid. Colin4C 10:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You could always try WP:ANI, WPLondon have had to take two issues to them over the past couple of daze - and it helps for an independent observer to review the situation - calm tempers and slap heads, if necessary. I think the limit was when I was called a liberal (pschheept-ptweeh). Read through what goes on there, state the case dispassionately, and let them make their own minds up. Just take care you don't inflame the miscreant with your forceful personality. Personally, I always think these things could do with an all round cooling off period, but that doesn't seem possible. Well it is wiki .... Kbthompson 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as always, I heed what you say Kb. If this had been a singular spat, I would have walked away rather than adding anything of my own to the trollo-verse. However, I just get that feeling that even if I did walk away, 'Nightmare Guy' would track down my edit history and become an eternal 'pain in the neck' to me and my descendants whatever I was editing on any article. This is I think what they call 'politics'. Anyway, at the moment the situation is under wraps, as, currently, the famous 'Mermaid from the Baltic Sea' (who seems to be reasonable type of aquatic denizen) is supporting my edits. Colin4C 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Editor review

Hey, no problem. Even if your signature is plain, its okay. They're just to tell people who you are. Mine messes up the edit pages, its so long. But I'm rather reluctant to let it go, so..heh. Anyway, cheers and have a nice day! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

cheers and thanks again. Kbthompson 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh! What a lovely war

"Oh! What a lovely war" was a music hall song, originally sung my male impersonator Ella Shields. Apparantly Shields was also the original singer of "Burlington Bertie from Bow", though Vesta Tilly seems to have stolen all the credit for that. Even more shocking news I have just discovered is that Julie Andrews (aka Mary Poppins) was also a transvestite and had a gay love affair with Tony Blair. Colin4C 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no wish to get those pages on my watchlist. I have enough vandals, trolls and even goths. I gave you a Burlington Bertie pic and references above. Where's the article? Kbthompson 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here: Burlington Bertie. Colin4C 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly complete, you've not done Ellie Shields and William Hargreaves - how am I supposed to put my big foot and plaster referenced all over it until you're done? Kbthompson 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See now Ella Shields. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Can't find much on Hargreaves. I also read somewhere that Tilly's 'Burlington Bertie', was a different one to the gentleman from Bow, whom we all know about. Tilly's song has possibly got different lyrics, but I can't seem to find out any more about this mystery. Also someone has promised to obtain for me a copy of Star! (film), in which Julie Andrews gives a performance as the famed Bert. Colin4C 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Kb. Our edit war at Werewolf fiction is spiralling out of control. Dreamguy has (as is normal with him) now recruited one of his mates to enforce his controversial edit, using the classic one, two reversion combo technique. Needless to say, he has used almost his every edit as opportunity to personally abuse me, as per normal for him in relation to other editors who disagree with him. Colin4C 11:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put a talkheader on the page, so it's on my watch list. There's an awful lot of WP:bullying that goes on. I'm trying to rein back on WP:grumpy 'cos it just seems to wind them up (and I've been advised Americans just don't gettit). There is a review process that can be used - both for an individual's attempted ownership of a page, and to root out sockpuppets. Some people just aren't collaborative, usually best to call for the referees and stand back. You do have to collect evidence, so make some notes in your sandbox pointing to particular edits you have problems with.

In the meantime WP:realife is getting busy, so less time online for a while. Kbthompson 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not been recruited by DreamGuy nor have I ever had any contact with him before. I am an admin who is trying to stop the edit wars. Please think twice before calling others sockpuppets. IrishGuy ^talk 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

London Theatre categories

Hi Kb do you think it's a good idea to have all these categories? Personally I don't think people really care what borough a theatre happens to be in? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we can always delete them again ...! There's an attempt at Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Categories to sort London categories to try to cut down on the size of the category classes. The general category Westminster is overloaded with Theatres - overall (I hope), there's no effect apart from tidying the categories, and providing a hierarchy. It is a similar proposal to churches in ..., and will also come out in buildings and structures - as churches. The last thing I'll do is remove theatres in London from the template. Kbthompson 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not alarmed by the more specific cats. I trust the K-man! -- Ssilvers 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, G-man and S-man can now take a look at Category:Theatres in London. We'll see how it goes, and whether they all emerge on CfD over the next few days - despite it already being discussed there, as various merge and renames for London. There's nothing lost, as Template:Theatres in London listifies the old London theatre list, now you can access them all in Buildings and structures in London Boro'!. Kbthompson 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

St James's Theatre

Only a start? I would think it's further along than some that have received a B. Likewise, the Gaiety Theatre, London. I'd give them a B--I don't see how much more there is to be said about them--but I'll leave it to you either way. Hope all is well! If you're interested, there's lots of activity these days at WP:MUSICALS Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I reassessed both of them. It seemed a reasonable request, although I wasn't guilty of one of them! I'm fine, trying to catch up on a dozen things at once. I'll not be around so much for a couple of weeks. How's it with you? Kbthompson 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Things look swell, things look great! Sorry, deeply immersed in musicals! (The Whinger) -- Ssilvers 20:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

re:that thing above, I got copyright clearance from the NT - but, apparently everything is also copyright the Robert Adams Trust - still, the exhibition opens July 4th at Osterley, so I'll be disappointed if you can't make it (of course, it's for children, so I don't expect you to try too hard ...). I hope to make it myself, but it's none too clear, as I'll be upt'north for a wedding. Kbthompson 22:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I should say that my primary interest is in theatre, less so, the musical aspect. I appeared with the RSC and NT in a number of productions, but only performed at the RFH and RAH once each ... I did sing backing (mainly animal noises) on a top 50 US single, and performed backing vocals on two CDs that sunk without perceptible trace! Mainly, I only seem to sing at funerals these days ... Kbthompson 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Holborn Empire

Cannot see this theatre in any of the London lists. Has it been missed? Regards, David Lauder 08:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've created a re-direct page: Holborn Empire, which will take you to Weston's Music Hall...Colin4C 09:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

... and now it's marked in the page ... Kbthompson 09:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Knightsbridge

Even though the whole street is in LB City of Westminster, by the looks of things, the district itself overspills into LB Kensington and Chelsea. Simply south 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was previously corrected for saying that! Do you want to change it, in some generally acceptable form? cheers PS sorry your RfA didn't go through, you deserved it for all your hard work. Kbthompson 14:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already changed it anyway. Thanks for the RfA support but i decided the withdraw for a variety of factors and no consensus. Simply south 16:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What the...?

Btw, why do you have a with squiggle above, square and c with line in your archive box? Simply south 16:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea! Kbthompson 18:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Freightliners City Farm

A tag has been placed on Freightliners City Farm, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pekaje 09:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive, comments on article page and WPLondon Kbthompson 10:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing today

Off to Osterley to take pix for the national crust. If they allow me to use any here, they will appear; but more likely, like Sutton House. I won't get clearance. Kbthompson 08:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

archiveKbthompson 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

George Melly

Many thanks kb, much appreciated. We shall miss him. Tomandlu 09:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We all will. Tonight this household will raise a glass to a life well lived, and dust off a few lps. Kbthompson 09:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Harringay

Thanks for the new Reflist style - I noticed in [[Wikipedia:Footnotes ]] that the new style won't show in every browser. It doesn't on mine. Do you know any more about the is hugely important issue (adjectivising as he realsies how drawn in to the minutiae he's become.....and hardly able to believe it.....) hjuk 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I usually use Firefox, and it presents as two columns there (it's generally a better - and more secure - browser, so what I would recommend it). I just tried it in IE 7.0 and note it comes out acceptably, but in single column mode. Is that how it comes out for you? If it's all over the place, then we should find something that works in all browsers, sorry if this has put you to any inconvenience. Let me know if I need to fix it, because it affects a lot of pages I've had my dirty mitts on! Kbthompson 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no problems. It looks fine. I just wondered if it's purely browser dependent or fixable - sounds like the former. But you can rest easy; all looks fine, just no twizzles in IE. hjuk 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a relief. BTW: I haven't said recently how excellent your work on the Harringay pages has been. Just what they needed, someone with local knowledge, enthusiasm and the ability to find out what you don't already know. Kbthompson 09:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How kind. Thank you. It's enjoyable learning more about the history and Wikipedia - how it works techinically and socially - all jolly interesting stuff. I'm glad there are helpful people like you out there; thanks for your support. There are also some more difficult ones too. But most seem to get it and be ok. hjuk 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes on Theatre articles

Hello, Kb. Just a "head's up": An editor plans to implement infoboxes on all the Theatre articles. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Template sandbox. If you object, let him know. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I did make a few comments on the matter some time ago. I'm not particularly sure how useful it will be for some of the 'former ...', 'former, then rebuilt, then opened as cinema, then converted into a theatre ...' problems, some can be quite subtle.

I'm a bit tied up at the moment with real-life projects, so this month doesn't look too wiki-active. Hope all goes well with you. Kbthompson 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam in List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham, by Nuttah68 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Council services aren't WP:SPAM (done just to archive it) Kbthompson 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam in List of libraries in Barnet

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of libraries in Barnet, by Nuttah68 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of libraries in Barnet is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of libraries in Barnet, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Council services aren't WP:SPAM (done just to archive it) Kbthompson 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Theatre

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for all your help in developing the infobox. I see you've started putting it everywhere! Just one suggestion -- in the designation field, maybe pipe the link like [[Listed building|Listed Building Group II]]? It should fit, and it gives more info than just "Group II". No one on this side of the Atlantic really knows what it means, anyway, but I think it would be a little clearer. Thanks again! —  MusicMaker5376 09:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you for putting it all together. It's a pleasure to have collaborated. I'm trying to steel myself for the first major test, which will be adding it to Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. First, I've got to get it right - it's complicated and second, there are a lot of 'ownership' issues with pages like that - after all, it is FA.

I do make sure that the listed building status is covered in the article, and that it's linked to English Heritage. I never really work out completely what I'm going to do until I've seen a few in action. My mate Ssilvers always says I'm too gnomic about these things (see Editor review, secretly I know he's right), but it's also a sort of inherent minimalism. I want the reader to follow that link to find out more! A purely expository style doesn't aid learning.

I'm still toying with the idea of firing up AWB to aid completion, but difficult to automate this particular task, and that would commit me to a long editing session (no time at the moment). Kbthompson 11:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Anytime.... And maybe you're right about Listed building. I think, though, that either way an American isn't going to know what it means and is going to follow the link....

I'm probably going to use AWB myself in doing the Broadway theatres. It really makes life so much easier.

Thanks again! —  MusicMaker5376 19:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wormwood Street

Seems that wikipedia redevelopers want to bulldoze it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wormwood Street Colin4C 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as evidenced by the state of the talk page, I've not had time to be particularly active recently. I've done what I can for poor Wormwood Street. To be honest, the productive thing would be to try to provide some coverage for all the wards in the City, rather than documenting individual streets, or buildings. I think the south side of this street is home to the monolithic Deutsche Bank, but that might be on London Wall! I think the nearby church of All Hallows is connected with this street - but can't prove that at the moment!

Anyway, I'm being dragged away from the computer, catch up sometime. Did you get my message about Hoxton Hall Victorian melodrama? Toodle-pip Kbthompson 12:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes thanks for info KB. Just obtained a reprint of a 19th century playscript of 'Sweeney Todd' by melodramatist George Dibden Pitt, which I might utilise for the wikipedia if I can summon up the energy to do so. Your info of latest Roman Wall excavation at Wormwood Street is interesting. So a new section has been exposed to public view??? Last thing I knew was that, inter alia, the Bishopsgate bomb destroyed one or more of the plaques marking the 'Roman Wall Walk', though maybe these have now been replaced? Colin4C 12:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the development was permitted with public access, for what it's worth - those clauses are normally ignored within a couple of years (like all those modern blocks along the Thames). Made a few comments on AfDs for London streets, generally he seems to have got it right, but one or two are significant streets that are just stubbie. Interested in Sweenie Todd - but aren't these Victorian adaptions a bit ten-a-penny? Kbthompson 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the famous wikipedia Johnny Depp will be playing Sweeny Todd in a soon-to-be-released film. You may notice some other interesting names:

Tim Burton will direct an adaptation of Sondheim's Sweeney Todd for the big screen. It will star Johnny Depp as Sweeney Todd, Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Lovett, Alan Rickman as Judge Turpin, Sacha Baron Cohen as Signor Adolfo Pirelli, and Laura Michelle Kelly as the Beggar Woman. It is slated for wide release on December 25, 2007. Colin4C 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, the other film was in 1936! I thought productions were tenapenny. You may be interested in Threepenny Opera (Brecht/Weil version) 26 Nov at Wilton's. Kbthompson 08:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, its sounds within my price range... Colin4C 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's going for a song, well a tenor! Hackney Empire are also doing music hall at the end of the month. Kbthompson 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Theatre box

Hi KB, Great work on the theatre infobox.. just a couple of comments: 1) Wilton's Music Hall appears to be absent.. 2) How is the differentiation done between "other major theatres" vs "fringe and suburban"? The reason I ask is because at least 2 of the theatres in Fringe&Suburban are actually quite central to London's theatre-world, the first being the Bush Theatre which is important for the amount of new work it relentlessly promotes each year and also Theatre Royal Stratford East which has a very distinguished history, esp with the Joan Littlewood connection. Your thoughts appreciated :-) Best, Peripatetic 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

replied elsewhere, now just archive. Kbthompson 23:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cork Street deletion review

Hi, just wanted to give you the heads up that I have listed Cork Street for deletion review, based on the fact that no consensus was reached in the deletion discussion. I am writing this message to all contributors of the discussion, whether they voted keep or delete. -- Roleplayer 23:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

replied elsewhere, now just archive. Kbthompson 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

More on Wormwood Street

According to my research there is an alley running south from Wormwood Street called Helmet Court. Or at least there was when the famous taxi-driver Al Smith wrote about it in his renowned 'Dictionary of City of London Street Names' in 1970. Not sure if it is still there. Therefore not sure whether to add this info to Wormwood Street article. Maybe you could check for me if you are ever down that way...According to Smith, Helmet Court was named after an inn of the same name. Colin4C 17:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You could try [1]. It would not surprise me that it were the site of an Inn. Generally, courts develop as a large site being split by building either side, leaving an alley between the buildings for access. Kbthompson 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishopsgate

Got your message Kb. It was just the acronyms I didn't understand. I was actually thinking about Bishopsgate as you sent your message (spooky I know). Might add info on Catherine Wheel Alley to it. Said alley commemorates an old coaching inn of same name which fronted on Bishopsgate. One of the several many historic coaching inns on this road that are now demolished, gone and forgotten. Colin4C 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot emphasis how much my brain hurt in fixing this template - and I have a brain the size of a small solar system ... it hertz all the diodes down my left side.

Again, said coaching inn was probably developed as an alley with buildings either side of the plot. That's the way they did these things. Ultimately pubs are quite ephemeral and we shall soon be quite nostalgic for the boozer smelling of stale cigarette smoke, compared to the fresh smell of stale drink, vomit sodden carpets and leaking toilets. Cynic, moi?

Did ya check it? No embarrassing ceremonial county, the right fire and police service. I sweated blood over that template .... and ya don't understand the terminology! Do you understand, if I had made one mistake, Welsh people would have been after me! Cornish people! Sco... , no it's too much. Kbthompson 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had said something like 'it's my round' I would have immediately understood what you were talking about. As for the Bishopsgate coaching inns they were actually quite important as initial and terminal staging posts on for the Old North Road and some of them were possibly venues for early drama. The Royal Mail took this route as well (there used to pub of same name hereabouts which possibly still exists under same name). This was a bit of old London which survived the Great Fire only to be comprehensively redeveloped in the later 19th century though one inn frontage was actually transported in situ to the V and A.

My next task is to track down the pub in London where Lenin and Stalin planned the Russian Revolution and translate some of that obcure Cyrillic graffiti in the bogs.

Ah the template? Something I said about it earlier on? You were listening. Now I understand.....Colin4C 10:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The revolutionary committee met over a carpet warehouse in Whitechapel, bizarrely it was owned by an American. It used to be a camera shop, and if you asked nicely, they would lead you the the very room, which was then a stockroom. I have no reference for this! They also hung out in pubs around Clerkenwell Green.

I filled in the missing City wards, as stubs, with as much info as I could obtain quickly. The locations are missing, or very approximate (taken from local landmarks). You may wish to take a look at them before someone decides there's no need for them. One notable former resident of Bishopsgate is our Willie Shakespeare ... Kbthompson 11:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just had a peek at the Castle Baynard ward article. By the way I just added a gripping account of the burning of Baynard's Castle to the Great Fire of London article, though that latter is such a good article that there seems little scope for improvement. Colin4C 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

London Borough of Croydon

After I reviewed the article, I noticed that you had then reviewed this and placed it on hold on the talk page; though you did not update the listing at WP:GAC with the {{GAOnHold}} template, so I didn't know you reviewed it when I went there.

Anyway, I have placed my comments and review on the talk page, and don't believe the article is anywhere close to meeting the Good Article criteria, so I've updated its status from on hold to failed, as it's unlikely that the article is going to come to GA status within the on hold time period, which is usually between 2-3 days to one week. The article can be renominated when it meets the criteria. Dr. Cash 06:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for performing the review. I don't consider myself experienced enough to do a full review, I was merely trying to place some helpful comments to try to move it in the right direction, I believe that user, who also proposed the review, themselves made the decision to place it on hold. The user, while enthusiastic, is young so patience and encouragement is appropriate. I think your review is a model of how to move the article forward. Kbthompson 09:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:SlovakEmbassy006 (London).JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:RuSlovakEmbassy006 (London).JPG. The copy called Image:RuSlovakEmbassy006 (London).JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 13:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, it had the wrong name! (forced archiving). Kbthompson 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

City of London wards

Thank you for completing the Wards in the City of London category. I have never seen any article referring to the "26 wards of the City of London", and yet Farringdon was split in the 14th century whilst Bridge Without was still in existence. Do I deduce one of the present wards is comparatively modern? Bashereyre 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, have I made a mistake somewhere, I wouldn't put it beyond me. The text I added says ... is one of 25 wards - where did you get 26? There are 25 names on the City website, there were more at one time, since some have subsumed lesser wards. I don't think there are any 'modern wards'.

Or, are you viewing it historically? Certainly Southwark (Bridge Without) was a ward in the City in historical times, current City wards are listed in the template {{City of London wards}}, and in the article City of London Corporation, both list 25 wards. Kbthompson 23:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I should just add, one thing I would like to see in the City is more rich linking between, wards, guilds and churches (for instance). There is a danger that if this is not done, someone will eventually do a non-for-deletion for the lot of them due to under use. Kbthompson 23:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

East End

Your East End article looks exemplary. More could be written on the East End in fiction, but I think that needs a separate article of its own. Am currently reading one of Sax Rohmer's weird imaginings vis-a-vis Limehouse: 'Tales of Chinatown' (1922) in which strangely Fu Manchu doesn't make an appearance, though there is much multi-cultural shenanigans between the Chinese, Jews and Cockneys. Colin4C 20:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ah, blush ... you always want to examine the fictional worlds, when the real ones are so much more interesting .... his books are based on a very real guest house in Shadwell - but it doesn't sound half so exciting ... Kbthompson 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but fictional worlds, and bizarre fantasies and cultural stereotypes often inform our 'real world'. Just look at the tabloids any day of the week to see how fantasies about white slavery, immigrants, demonic drug dealers, perverted priests, mad Mullahs bent on world domination etc etc continually get people foaming at the mouth in a collective delerium. These fantasies, as before, also played out on the streets of East London. Colin4C 10:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Col, when that man comes round again, just say no ... I don't deny the importance of either 'Art' (including literature) in location, nor a socially constructed reality; however, in an encyclopaedia there is a primacy of describing some base level of 'reality'. Like archaeology, you don't apply over interpretation to the evidence. Somewhere, I think Limehouse, it states categorically that the place was ridden with opium dens, and yes, this was an established usage in the fiction of the time; the reality is people lived there who worked for the East India company and were involved in the eastern opium trade, some of them came back users. This needs to be put in the context of a society where people were taking laudenaum, cocaine and opiates on a widespread basis. Its not a defining meaning for the location. I just added referenced material for prostitution to the East End article, the estimate of the number of women working in the trade in the 19th century there was about 5,000. This needs to be put in the context of estimates of 80,000 for the whole of London. It's not a defining characteristic for the area, merely reflective of the whole society. You're coming perilously close to pyschogeography! Kbthompson 09:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually in archaeology interpretation comes first. One does not dig at random but according to an interpretive scheme of what you expect to find and its possible meaning(s). Then after the dubious bits of old pot and bone are found (or not) you then hype it up to the media as 'Amazing Revelation about Female Gladiators!' or 'Emperor's Palace Found'! One then inspects ones paypacket in the smug knowledge that todays media hype will be yesterdays metaphorical chip-wrappings. Colin4C 10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're nowt but an ol' cynic ... the nice thing about IT projects is that if they failed, you get paid even more to make them work. It is often better to travel in hope, than to arrive. Kbthompson 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Folly/Toole's Theatre

Fantastic work on this! This will help in so many articles!! -- Ssilvers 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You know I quite like to write articles on theatre, this had so little written on it, but as I dug, I found it touched on a number of significant careers. Toole's little stock company seemed to have launched a large number of, particularly female, actors and songstresses - and James Barrie. Kbthompson 16:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Anti-vandalism work

Thanks for reporting the IP, good anti-vandalism work anyway... Keep it up! Thebestkiano 10:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Kbthompson 10:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Where are all the admins?!? That IP needs banning! Thebestkiano 10:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone to get their Sunday morning papers, and croissants - which is where I'd be going if I weren't doing this! At least I have fresh coffee. Kbthompson 10:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The queues going down, so someone's onto it ... Kbthompson 10:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good! They're taking their time. They normally file them in about 5 mins.Thebestkiano 10:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Silence of the Wikipedants

Haven't had a run-in with the latter for months...Whats wrong with them? Are they just biding their time? Surely I didn't scare them all off? Spooky...Colin4C 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Answered in another place, archive Kbthompson 10:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Folly Theatre

On 16 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Folly Theatre, 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.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow it to archive. Kbthompson 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hungerford, London...

Yes, this is all very confusing. There is also Hungerford Steps to consider, unless indeed they were really named Hungerford Stairs. This was the site of Warrens Blacking Factory where Charles Dickens worked as a lad, before Charing Cross Station and the Embankment so changed the geography of this area that all one can do is scratch ones head in bemusement as you try to figure out where you are. Colin4C 10:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

probably steps Kbthompson 10:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe stairs: http://charlesdickenspage.com/dickens_london_map.html#warrens Colin4C 11:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being awkward, what does Old and New London say? Kbthompson 11:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what they say, but to increase the confusion I think that Hungerford Steps/Stairs was the name of a street and did not necessarily refer to any steps or stairs going down to the river thereabouts - unless of course it did...Colin4C 11:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, remember, this is effectively Villiers Street; dropping quickly from the Strand down to an embankmentless river, where a ferry waits. If you've ever been to embankment gardens, you'll remember the river gate; that was the river frontage - about 50 metres from today's water. Kbthompson 11:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at an old map it seems that the street named 'Hungerford Steps/Stairs' ran north-south west of and parrallel to Villiers Street - in between the present day Villiers street to the east and Craven street to the west. The street was completely eliminated when Charing Cross station was built on its site. In theory the street itself could have descended to the river in a series of steps/stairs or it could have led down to some riverside steps/stairs or it could have done both these things...Colin4C 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pier, you might want to take a look at the extract at Dickens, is just interesting Kbthompson 12:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Villiers Street now has its own entry. In the light of the confused situation regarding the Hungerford Steps/Stairs and Halls and Markets immediately to the west I have given a bare minimum of information. Feel free to add etc. Thanks for your previous info on Gatti's etc. To add to strange connections between things I have just discovered that Kipling wrote a poem in 1897 called 'The Vampire', the same year that Bram Stoker (a few yards away down at The Lyceum) wrote Dracula. Apparantly it was Kipling's poem which inspired the early screen 'vamps' such as Theda Bara rather than Stoker's production. Colin4C 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

More confusion. Random on-line browsing has brought notice of a 'Hungerford Street' in this area which may or may not be synonymous with Steps/Stairs. Brings back memories of my former residence in good old Shenfield Street in Hoxton which according to the Metropolitan Police didn't exist. Our address at the back of a shoe shop wasn't valid either. If its not on the police computer its not there...Colin4C 16:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You could look at MANORS AND ESTATES:HUNGERFORD INN. I hate to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, but doesn't that suggest a status for the area, like Lincolns Inn? It is worthy of much further investigation ... tettering on original research! Kbthompson 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Kb. Hungerford Inn seems to have been a similar type dwelling to the rest of the grand mansions along the Strand, though the article doesn't make it clear whether it was eventually demolished like the adjacent York House or fell into rack and ruin like the Savoy. Colin4C 09:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Ackroyd's 'Dickens', Hungerford Stairs led down to the Thames from an area of 'squalid corners and alleys' - which was the former area of Hungerford Inn I guess. Colin4C 10:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't use any of the VCH Westminster stuff, as it's still in draft, and not peer reviewed. It seems to me that London has always been a place where a drifting population will move into any 'unclaimed space' and make it its own. Then the actual landowner (probably a new one) spends the next century trying to tidy it up and extract large amounts of money from it - vide history of Hungerford Mkt. Then cycle repeats until railway company comes along ... and the population moves into the East End slums, having nowhere else to go ... Villiers Street originally led to a wharf and was acquired to provide access to the river (clearing any buildings out of the way). Hungerford Stairs acquired a 150 ft causeway into the river (probably going out to where the current river bank is), this was to facilitate landing.

I think, there should only be one 'historic' article covering Hungerford Inn, Market, Hall and stairs; there should be some description of how Villiers Street (relationship to Villers family) came about, and what it was like before Mr Bazellgette came along and took the river away. The building of the station may also have affected its course. The other side of the station is Craven St (?); the notes say Hungerford stairs were adjusted eastward to run through the mkt, then the bridge was built, then the station swept all before it. It makes sense to me that the stairs were originally around Craven Street, it's a lot less steep than Villiers and would give room for a wharf located at Villiers. The arrival of station and embankment means that there are no clues left in the environment ... Need some kind of timeline to make sense of all the changes at this one very small site ... Kbthompson 10:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hermann Melville lived in Craven Street. Not many people know that...If you ever walk down that way note the stretch of 18th century houses, numbers 25-42, and if you get invited in be sure to peruse the 'pretty staircases with turned balusters'. Well that sort of sums up what Pevsner has to say about it anyway. Colin4C 11:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I've just figured out how to download my snaps onto the wikipedia commons. Next time I'm in Villiers Street or wherever in London I will take some photos for use in the wikipedia London articles etc. Colin4C 14:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now got a little camera, I carry with me - trouble is, I don't think it's very good! Kbthompson 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nightmare Guy

Remember the admin coming to the aid of Nightmare Guy about the werewolf fiction page and thoroughly abusing me? See now: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Colin4C 12:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What goes around, comes around. Couldn't happen to a nicer piece of work. I used to have a quote from Ms Manners, about how being precisely polite aids the art of the true insult. The examples of his posts are just laughably crude name calling. Kbthompson 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to gloat. Dammit I will gloat! Colin4C 14:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Carry On Up the Jungle

Kb, could you tell why my footnote isn't working in Carry On Up the Jungle? Colin4C 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doh! You're too busy gloating to be thinking! Kbthompson 15:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Winter Garden Theatre

This West End theatre was built by George Grossmith, Jr. about 1919, and hosted Kissing Time (1919), A Night Out (1920), Sally (1921, with music by Jerome Kern and Victor Herbert), The Cabaret Girl (1922, with book by P. G. Wodehouse and music by Kern), The Beauty Prize (1923, with Wodehouse and Kern), a revival of Tonight's the Night, Primrose (1924, with music by George Gershwin), Tell Me More and Kid Boots (1926).

Do you know anything else about it? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See New London Theatre, it's a bit deficient on the Winter Gdns. Kbthompson 15:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a clear need for an article on Edward Laurillard, there are 11 immediate search results, let alone the misspellings, etc. Kbthompson 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I added this info on the Winter Garden to the New London Theatre article. Should Winter Garden be added to the list of former London theatres? I will start an article on Edward Laurillard. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 16:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll wiki some of the references. Kbthompson 16:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

Hello again Kb, just to say that if you come across my stabbed and mutilated body in the Spitalfields area it is because I have had the temerity, once again, to make some edits to the Jack the Ripper page...Watch this space for the Masons and the other usual suspects. Colin4C 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear, you do live dangerously, especially with the ripper apocrypha . We're already puzzling over the body of another on-line associate, with a conductor's baton sticking out of his back, although personally I think it was the violin string around the neck wot dun fer 'im. Kbthompson 11:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's put you in your place, you can try reporting it at WP:ANI as clear evasion of a behavioral (sic) editing restriction. Definite knife in the back job, John .... Kbthompson 15:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have been blindly reverted as part of another revert war involving another two other editors on the page, one of whom is the abusive anonymous presumed sock-puppet of Nightmare Guy we know and don't love. His comments on Talk page are not directed at me I think??? But, yes, once more the streets of cyber Spitalfields are disgraced by blood and bare knuckle fights... Colin4C 15:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe take some tips from Daniel Mendoza? Kbthompson 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see he has had a go at me. Could you help me? I think my edits are valid, and I am supplying references where none have been supplied before. Colin4C 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Em ... If you feel he has breached the terms of his ASBO then you can take it to ANI. If they review our levity here, they might equally take a dim view of us! I would (i) see if your j'acuse worked on the talk page, (ii) see if his behaviour is moderated by being 'outed' as a sock, (iii) be civil, don't provoke; and give a go at civilised discussion. If I remember his former behaviour properly, you'll get more than enough evidence for a straight block. I note that he's been through the process twice, and then reverts to type as soon as no-one's looking - in this case, because he thinks no-one's looking at the sock. Why can't you boys play nicely? Kbthompson 16:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to take sides Kb, but just to want you to see if my edits are valid as a contribution to the knowledge of the East End etc. Maybe you can make some edits of your own. The anon sock is using this article as his own dog manger. If he was concerned with knowledge he would have supplied references to article, improved it etc. Instead it has been used as a venue for petty tyranny against other editors for years and effectively frozen. That is not right. Colin4C 17:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got to go for now, I'll probably have time to have a look tomorrow, which is probably good advice for you. Yes, his previous behaviour there has indicated considerable WP:OWN, if you don't want to go to WP:ANI, you might try the WP:SSP; since the purpose of the sock is to subvert the arbitration decision. His contributions indicate a similarity of interests and behaviour that show that is the case. You need to present a brief summary of the evidence that they are one and the same. Kbthompson 17:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that my main aim is to improve the article. See how it goes tommorow. It would be great to achieve concensus among many editors rather than it ending up in as a set-piece duel in the sun as all the rest of the cyber townsfolk duck for cover and leave town rather than being riddled with bullets in the crossfire. Colin4C 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I shall find a horse trough to hide behind, as the bullets cut through the wood and enter the water, they make a tremendous zipping sound ... Kbthompson 08:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1955 Quare Fellow (playbill).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1955 Quare Fellow (playbill).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All the info was there, just not in a template. If the purpose of the exercise is to make people add the template, why not make it mandatory on entry and not go through this rigmarole each and every time ... Now archive. Kbthompson 10:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Music hall - Prior discussion

Yes the article is pretty good. Nothing on the serio-comic schoolgirl acts of female entertainers such as Marie Lloyd though. More info on it in the recent bio of her which I could get out the library I guess...Colin4C 10:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added further reading, some images, some links to media files (you might want to listen to those!), and quite a few refs. Some of the more esoteric sections need referencing, particularly as they're drawing opinions. I've been waiting for the gas-man (as in the gas-man cometh), they've been and gone, unfortunately the delivery company sent the wrong radiator, so I'm going to have to waste another day ...). But I need to do something else now, apart from wiki! Kbthompson 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you see the 'Ackney Marshes from where you are, by the way? Colin4C 12:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the miles of blue fencing that has sprung up? If it weren't for the 'ouses in between ... it's a five minute drive, a 20 minute walk - and I'm looking for somewhere else to be during the Olympix! Kbthompson 13:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I'm glad you have stated that Brick Lane leads to 17th century Spitalfields. I originally thought that I was the only one who experienced that particular time warp. Just testing hyper-links: Yellow Brick Lane - no doesn't go anywhere... Colin4C 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Humph, some idiot was recently saying that the current load of immigrants replaced the white working classes, I ask you, pass me my yarmulke! As I said, I often have trouble with the current street layout ... maybe it could have been better phrased ... before it said it was Spitalfields ... and that just made me mad enough to perform multiple reversions .... Kbthompson 23:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Always was a lot of aggro in Brick Lane as I recall, in fact I'm surprised that Jack the Ripper left the place alone. The trouble that guy has caused us here on the wikipedia! If only he could have sent the police an annotated list of all his victims rather than bad verse and dubious missives cracking bad taste jokes about his necrophiliac perversions then the wikipedia would be a safer place for the unwary editor. Colin4C 11:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well your back looks like a pin cushion. Told you to take it easy! Looks like your friend has agreed to play nicely, so confine yourself to the article and move it forward. You don't want to end up looking like the bad guy.

Yes, lol, The diaries of Jack the Ripper would come in handy. I used to know a community of Quakers in Brick Lane, but the trouble was confined to the top end, the police eventually stopped the trouble makers from going down the lane. At least the London Burkers were kind enough to provide a detailed signed confession. Kbthompson 12:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've thought of a new motto for my page "You don't have to be a masochist to edit the wikipedia, but if you are it helps". Jack the Ripper was a reasonable fellow compared to 'my friend'. It seems that repeated personal abuse, brazen sock-puppeting and wiki-lawyering are now all totally acceptible to supine wikipedia admins. Is the wikipedia about outside knowledge or is it completely self-referential? It certainly doesn't seem to be about common sense. Colin4C 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, you've got to realise the difference between people who want to move an article forward, and those who want to talk about themselves. The later, you avoid with several barge poles ... Kbthompson 23:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Barge poles? Now there's an idea...(thwacking and screaming heard off stage...). Colin4C 10:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Stick to a nice quiet play like Coriolanus, there's less blood ... Exeunt omnes, pursued by a bear .... Kbthompson 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst we are on the topic the Melodrama article is still not particularly brilliant, despite my best efforts. Too much space given to the somewhat esoteric operatic melodrama and not enough on the blood and thunder stuff. Colin4C 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the way to develop that section would be to include some of the theatres specialising in melodrama, the structure of the plays (I think typically 4 acts), performance and a 'night at the theatre' - no poncey single performance, but several plays interspersed with other entertainments ... God, it's like the way they get away with showing you a single film .... Kbthompson 11:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Essex

Not sure what you're doing here, but you've recently changed occurrences of Essex, a county of England that is referred to as Essex, to a peculiar phrase Essex County. The later may have a meaning in the US, but not, sadly in English. I think you should consider where the place is, before making the change. Thanks Kbthompson 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm doing the reverse; I've changed two references from Essex County to Essex. If you want to remove the "County" and it is appropriate to do so, feel free to remove it, but the term "Essex County" was used in the articles (albeit incorrectly) before I got there. Alansohn 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, mea culpa, they have more complex errors than I thought, and yep! it's not your fault. I'll look at them again. Cheers Kbthompson 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ChrisLangham (people like us).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ChrisLangham (people like us).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say what an incredibly useful bot this is. The info is there, but it's not in the template. I recently saw an example of a user who had followed the alternative format offered in the instructions - to the letter. They still got this message, because they didn't use the template. Bothered ... (now archive) ... Kbthompson 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

William Mecham

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of William Mecham, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.victorian-cinema.net/merry.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 12:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bang to rights, now archive. Kbthompson 17:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper peer review

A grand and splendid idea. Thank you for suggesting it. I've listed it for Peer Review. Hopefully, we will get some fine comments as well as some new contributors (which would be awesome). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Distracted by other things, sorry Kbthompson 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Which 'new contributors' will torn to shreds by Dreamguy and insulted by him as the admins adopt an hypocritical 'neutral' pose and add their own insulting messages to the new contributors talk page. But who knows? Maybe there are some crazy masochists who will enjoy this treatment? Colin4C 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to remove that entire talk page to an archive, there's about 3 cms of discussion about the article, interspersed with 3 metres of largely pointless argument. He's never going to arrive at an appreciation that he is unnecessarily combative. The thing needs a new structure, it needs some kind of linking narrative (to make sense of the confusion), and probably needs something hammered out betwixt the two of you.

East End still needs a read through, I've become blind to it, for the moment. Music Hall could still do with extra refs - although I've banged that back to the reviewer to indicate where it's still deficient (I think there are a few places that consist of commentary that needs to be ref'd to show it's not just a POV). We should get GA on that, then I'm going for FA on East End - there are enough ref's and I can't think of any aspect that has been left uncovered. I did (below), that could do with a read through - there's precious little on him, particularly his personal life - but, he is important as a cartoonist, music hall performer and early film celebrity! (I was going out, and didn't want to lose the text, got a warning for me' pains). Kbthompson 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting in some dates for the music hall performers. Also a mention of Those Were The Days (1934 film) - a brilliant film, mostly set in a music hall, featuring a very young John Mills as a lad who gets led astray by a glamorous soubrette at said music hall. Colin4C 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

... and almost certainly made at Gainsborough Studios in Hoxton! Kbthompson 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Some New Wikipedia Definitions

• Non-Notable = "Something I'm not personally interested in and know nothing about"
• Original Research = "Going to the library and reading a book on the subject"
• POV = "Using adjectives in a reckless way" Colin4C 10:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ROFL-bomp. I t'ink ya pegged it. Personally, I feel you should get banged up, for reckless use of adjectives in a public place. Kbthompson 10:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See Bevis Marks Synagogue for an example of over-zealous behaviour. Kbthompson 12:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack in the Sandbox

Sorry, being English, you might not be aware of the play on words in the title (its the name for an American fast-food chain). Sigh...things that were lost in the fire of conflict. :)

I think we should try to sandbox a version of Jack the Ripper to try out your suggested format. the way I see it, we can argue about the version already in place (which to my reckoning is a post-it note Christmas tree of utter shite) or we can be bold and try something different. As i said in the JR discussion page, i am not entirely convinced that adding the section of the setting of impoverished Whitechapel can entirely avoid OR by synthesis, but I am willing to work with you and see what happens. I think that there are others who could greatly assist the article as well who have been largely run off the article by all the Aggro appearing in edit summaries and in the article discussion. I know a few people totally unreated tot he article who could pitch in. How about you? (btw, not uninviting anyone; just suggesting that fresh eyes and fresh perspectives could only help us at this point). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself Irish, actually, with a heavy side order of Huguenots and 18th century Germans - but that's no matter ... I also lived for ten years in NYC. I've been up to my ears in alligator sandwiches this week - hence, inactivity. I hope to be clear by the end of next week. If I get time, I'll put up an outline.

I only see a very brief introduction to 1888 Whitechapel, more as scene setting. I would also see a chronological presentation of the murder chronology as a fast trot, with minimum details - Colin has created his own play space for further details. That sets the series of murders, identified as being down to the ripper in context. Then something about the contemporary police response and into the victims, with an introduction added that explains why they are thought to be 'canonical'. Just a few brief ideas - but now to bed.

Strange times here, my wife's sister is in hospital, and her husband was likely to be going home to a house under ten feet of water last night, it didn't happen, but contingency plans had to be made, particularly as he didn't know it was happening! Kbthompson 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Does Kingsland Really Exist?

I found this on page 475 of Cherry and Pevsner's volume on North London:

"The west part of the parish [of Hackney?] is still bisected by the Roman route of Ermine Street, running straight north from Shoreditch towards Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill; it southern stretch is known as Kingland Road from the hamlet of that name, where Pepys as a boy 'used to shoot with bows and arrows'. By the way an excellent bluffers guide to Pepys and his London has just been published under the title of 'Voices from the World of Samuel Pepys' by Jonathan Bastable. Colin4C 13:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a linear village along the road, with a 'waste' around the highway. This came to be used for a market, that still exists in minor form, but most of it has gone to Ridley Road (you often found markets in the main roads, or by the side of them); until they started putting tramlines in. Then it became remarkably inconvenient. As, I think it, says in the article, it's now dwarfed by Dalston ... Kbthompson 14:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the historic village of Kingsland does deserve a mention, though the present article does seem a bit self-indulgent (saying that, though, I do quite like the style...).Colin4C 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That was Tarquin, being excessively florid - and definitely a psycho-geographer. It needs a rewrite with stuff drawn from BritHist. So much world, so little time to write about it. Kbthompson 23:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting programme on Radio 4: Ian Hislop on Kitchener. Includes some snippets of relevant music hall songs (see listen again) Kbthompson 11:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Its working from a list recursively retrieved from Category:England stubs...

So will have biographies too

I do agree in a respect, that, it maybe shouldnt be tagging some of the places ones, like for categories, if its in a subcategory, its inheritably categorised by its parent categories..

I am only doing as i've been asked to..

Its not causing any harm par-se, so doesnt need to be stopped completely.. I'll ask User:Qst to comment... As he requested the tagging

Reedy Boy 15:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here I am :). As Reedy Boy explained above, I request him to do the tagging with his bot (as there is 18,000+ stubs alone), so it will go through every single one and tag them, and as he said - its not causing any harm. It is part of my attempt to revive WikiProject England, so all the articles within the scope of England should be tagged. Hope this helps, —Qst (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[Conflict...] Thanks for your reply, I agree with regard to parent classes, that would be my interpretation of the relationship between daughter projects and - that'd knock multi-Architecture and Skyscrapers back too! I think there may be a big 'rollback' coming up, since this affects so many county projects of England, and there was no discussion of the request. It's not so much the principal of the thing, as the sheer practicality of having a five line stub adopted by five different projects. Thanks Kbthompson 15:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

East End Literature

Didn't see any major objections about the literature section of East End in the review apart from about East Enders, which I never watch and am therefore not really qualified to write about. It's all filmed at Elstree in Hertfordshire so I've heard. How about if I added this: "produced at Elstree by politically correct middle class tossers who know nothing at all about the real East End"? Colin4C 19:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Essentially it's a list. The names and dates need to be sprinkled through the text with some proper linking narrative. I already changed the EastEnders thing to much what you said, any comment like that might qualify for an auto-fail! Kbthompson 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I knew I shouldn't have started on this until Music hall was finished ... Kbthompson 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The East End article is looking really good. I'm impressed with ourselves...Maybe we should write a book on it? Colin4C (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I told you Literature needed some work, don't you think that's better. I'll let you write the book, I've got about six others in a queue that will also never get written. Did you follow the MoLAS reference on the Red Lion theatre bit - interesting stuff, I knew some of it - but there's quite a bit more than I managed to ferret out. That's probably why he gets the big bucks .... Kbthompson (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the literature section is looking better, though sometimes I'm laconic on purpose pour encourager les autres to make their own editorial contributions. Sometimes it works... Colin4C (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And sometimes it doesn't. Is it clear to people that when I describe Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' as 'fantastic' I mean that it is a fantasy not that it is 'fantastic man!'? Colin4C (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just take 'nother toke and remember not everyone has your command of language - well that's what they tell me, anyway ... take a look at St Lukes, very interesting archaeological report linked now. About 260 pages, just ignore the 100 pages of health and safety details ... Kbthompson (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:UKROADS

Hi, just to let you know that the bot has been tagging these articles. If you spot any tag mess I'm sorry. I will try and review the London ones and tidy them up. Cheers, Regan123 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'm resigned to it now. I went through the FA and GA London articles to try to ensure that there weren't too many project banners and added the tidy code ... All mass bot London changes light up my watchlist like a Xmas tree ('tis the season), and gives vandals carte blanche for a while. I like the way WP:Trains sorts it out ... Heh ho ... Kbthompson (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the WP Railways thing. I'm going to raise it at the UKGEO and England project as well as a couple of other issues. I will let you know. Regan123 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed the infobox on a tiny hamlet on the outskirts of London, it is now adopted by WPLondon, WPSurrey and WP:UK Geo ... and WP:England will be along any minute ... thank god it doesn't have a railway station 8^). I shall await any decision with bated breath, and the confidence that there are so many combinations it won't be fixed by a bot.

Did you get your own, mm cough, WP:MoS's way on image sizes in Croydon? I changed them all in East End (which is up for GA, please comment/vote), but somebody changed most of them back! Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does that hamlet have a road :-)?

I haven't bothered yet. I don't think the article is GA ready yet anyway, so I will take another look. No point getting into an edit war about it. I don't think I see eye to eye with the other party, so I've taken a step back. It needs sorting, but I'll let the embers cool. East End is looking cracking. I think there are probably four paragraphs that might benefit from refs, but it's not a deal breaker for me. I'm adding a support. The paras begin "Its linguistic use is more identifiable, with word borrowings from", "The lands to the east of the City had always been used as hunting grounds," "The once popular music halls of the East End have mostly met the same fate as the theatres." & "The image of the East Ender changed dramatically between the 19th Century and the 20th." Regan123 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done [Oh, enough indents already ..]. Thanks for that (I meant FA!), I think most of those phrases are already transcluded from existing refs, but I'll check them out for the inevitable pedants. I think that village is unique in the UK for only being inhabited by pedestrians and remain cut off from the rest of civilisation. 8^). Thank you for your support. Kbthompson (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Music Hall - Later enquiry

Hi, I'm a doctorate student in Ireland, I like what you, Colin4C and co have but together, I was wondering if ye could direct me to any sources that I should look up to get a good conception of music hall. Also did anyone ever hear of a comedian called Jimmy O'Dea performing in Britain in the 1920s and 1930s. Irish Academic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish Academic (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That'll mess up my archiving - no problem, and thanks for the kind words. Online the Arthur Lloyd website is a good place to start. PlayUK, the online branch of the V&A theatre museum is also very good, although geared to a younger audience. (The theatre museum has now closed and most of its collection moved to S. Ken.; but with academic introductions you shouldn't have a problem accessing it). The University of Kent has a collection of theatre and music hall ephemera, some of which is catalogued online (including performers mentioned and places, some brief descriptions of theatres). The British Library had an online resource, including memoires of music hall artistes - but that's now closed as the project money ran out. They have an inhouse collection, but you have to fight with the catalogue (images aren't always in the main collection).

I'm not aware of any collections in Ireland, but there may well be, as there were music halls (not least Belfast). In print: Look at the further reading on the music hall article. In some ways, I think some of the works publ'd in the 70s are as good as any (closer to the end of the genre than contemporary works). Roy Hudd's book is supposed to be very readable, although I haven't seen it.

It's a bit difficult to get a quick key into the subject. Many books deal with artistes - so, you get some picture of their life and individual performance. Some deal with music halls, themselves. You can see some existent halls in the list in the article - but they all come from different periods, with different surroundings (ie more like a big pub, more like a dining room, more like a theatre). The early ones were an excuse to put on plays (against the law), but permitted with other entertainments. Some early ones were just amateur singalongs, later ones more like variety shows. Dickens tended to be an early visitor to the halls, so some descriptions of contemporary stuff turn up in his journals and journalism. Same goes for Kiplin. (Much of that work is available online, but you have to dig for it - music hall, going out, individual theatres, etc). The Era, the Music hall and theatre are contemporary artistes publications. Anyway, HTH Kbthompson (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Remembering Jimmy O'Dea (1985) Kbthompson (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of London congestion charge

Hi. I wondered if you could have a look at this Peer Review request. I'm gunning for FA and I don't think it is that far away. Regan123 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive, see there Kbthompson (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

East End FA

Just a quick note to say congratulations on the FA promotion. Regan123 (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, no matter how much you tell yourself it doesn't matter, it becomes quite a nail biting procedure! Kbthompson (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

I, Durova, am pleased to thank kbthompson for superb content contributions with this triple crown. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesty, excellent work! Durova^Charge! 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, your eminence. Kbthompson (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ER

Just a notice but i notice that i am noticing this little notice that i am noticing but this notice that i notice is not about that i notice this notice that i am noticing. Anyway i just thought i'd point out that your editor review was archived in September\October and so i don't think you will be reviewed now ntil your next one.

Btw, nice job on the FA. (I'm jealous). Simply south (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple ta's. Nobody told me - well that's my excuse. The FA was certainly nail-biting, particularly considering the hoops they make some people jump through. I think we got off easy ... I'm sure there'll be some sort of review process along any minute to keep me on my toes. That's the way they work, you know, let you relax and feel smug with yerself, and then ... pounce. I think Greenwich has prospects. Gustav and I beefed up the history section, but the rest still needs to look less like a tour guide. Kbthompson (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Le Gavroche Restaurant

Hi, It’s my understanding that the external link to review of Le Gavroche was deleted because of external link spamming. However I disagree with your action as the review of this restaurant is completely independent and is based on the experiences of the Square Meal team of inspectors, plus the opinions of readers who are surveyed throughout the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.69.246 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 November 2007

I suggest you read WP:EL carefully. Wikipedia is not a directory, and doesn't promote external websites. I suspect you may also wish to review WP:COI, in respect of the external link. You could try discussing the matter on the relevant talk page, as it advises in WP:SPAM, IMHO most editors will consider linking to a commercial website spam. Thank you for at least being up front about the matter. Kbthompson 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, see User talk:62.173.69.246. --TeaDrinker 17:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Kbthompson 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

East End of London

The FA is a great achievement. Lets see if we can get some more. For example, Rainham, London can't be that far off. MRSC • Talk 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I doubt it would ever have gone anywhere without your good self and Colin4c egging me on. Rainham looks not far off. I also asked for a peer review of Greenwich. I'd suggest try to improve Rainham and Greenwich at the same time. Ask for a peer review of Rainham, lick it in shape and stick it in for the GA review in Jan (its six month anniversary). A thorough GA, another peer review and a couple of months should see them to FA.

While you were away Pafcool did a great little number on London Borough of Croydon, but if anything it was too detailed and didn't make GA. I think given time to reflect, and some exemplars for the rest of London, he'll make it easy next time.

I'd like to see some of these district articles make GA, and beyond. At least it would give us a standard to aim for. I'd like to see them get it without a lot of hopeless repetition of stuff that should be in the borough pages - but if WP:UKCITIES is followed to the letter, you'll have borough information reproduced in each of 14 (ave) district pages.

The real challenge would be to do for the West End what we did for the East End! Kbthompson 17:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Grays Inn Road assesment

Expect some abuse for this - I start-class rated it previously and got told in No Uncertain Terms that it deserved much higher as it "had a lot of information".

Someone really needs to do something about this page... It's now considerably longer than Croatia, Norfolk and Anthony Eden, and about to overtake North America. — iridescent 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I put my reasons, and I can be very stubborn! Strategy is polite warnings, and straight to ANI if there's any trouble. I would prefer to reach an accommodation, I did notify the user over a month ago that something would have to be done about the page's level of extraneous detail, it went awfully quiet after that. The last edit was in October, give 'em a chance to do something about it, but I think the page should be marked for cleanup in the New Year.

In the meantime, I've condensed a page of largely irrelevant material down to three sentences at Orpington - after considerable patience, but the user has now been accused of sock puppetry, so perhaps not as naive as he looked. Kbthompson 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to get your hands dirty, take a look at the trainwreck-in-progress that constitutes the recent history of A13 road. I'm deliberately not getting involved any further in that one. — iridescent 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I could have done with that at the weekend when we went to Burnham on Couch - for some reason they've introduced a new version of the A130, and screwed up all the road signs - so you can neither find Burnham easily, or even worse get back to London! Kbthompson 23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

East End Smog

Greetings Kbthompson! I came by to exchange viewpoints and, hopefully, come away a bit the wiser concerning recent adjustments to text in the East End (London) article. The excised material explained why the eastern parts cities throughout Europe were very often occupied by poorer people by the mid 19th century. This is because winds tend to carry smog eastward in Europe. You accompany your edit with the comment:

prescient of them to move to where the most polution would be, before the industrial revolution took off - see preamble to history section for detailed reasons. Be happy to talk about it on talk page

I do grasp your point, that the East End was already unpopular before industrialisation. Nonetheless in the last 170 years many less popular areas around London, including some that are much less accessible, have been gentrified, while the East End lags behind. Certainly there could be many reasons for this; not least of all persisting prejudices. Yet it mirrors a trend in other European cities (Frankfurt and Munich, for instance), which is a point I felt readers might be interested in.

Be assured I think to wait on your response before making any adjustments.

--Philopedia 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering when you'd turn up! Nah, really, a very sincere welcome, if I am wrong (not unknown), I'd welcome correction. The East End expanded rapidly in the years 1801-1831 (see ref in article), this predates the main years of the industrial revolution. The main reasons for the poverty in the East End were:

1. The medieval system of copy hold that prevailed. This didn't change much until the middle of the 19th century, and even at its end, properties were still held on 7, 9 and 13 year leases. Compare this to the west end estates, where property was granted on 99 year leases.
2. The original reason for noxious industries being sited in the East End, was that the City placed them there. It was undeveloped, as opposed to the area immediately west of the city, and that was already occupied by lawyers - not a good place to put your effluvia (although, some mileage may differ). The north by marsh land, and the south by a river.
3. In addition, the ready availability of cheap labour in the area led to particular working practices of piecework and casual labour.

These particular items are readily confirmed from reading Alan Palmer's The East End (and most other historical works on the East End), and incidentally pre-date the industrial revolution, as does the pattern of increase in population.

Now, as to the climatic argument, it is true that the prevailing winds for most of Europe are westerlies. however the East End sits upon a large river that has its own influence upon the wind directions. The main climatic problems in London are in fact caused by vertical inversions where layers of pollution are trapped beneath a layer of cold air captured by the surrounding hills. (see 1950s smogs).

Now to the topographic argument. The East End is particularly 'blessed' by being surrounded on two sides by water, the Thames and the River Lee. The later became a major centre for chemical production. All in all the River didn't deliver the freshness one would expect of a popular place to live. Docks, chemical pollution, even at one time raw sewage ... gravity had a lot more to do with it than climate. The development of the East End was always hampered by a lack of river crossings, of both the Thames and the Lee (check a map, it's still true).

Anyway, I hope I've convinced you that prevailing wind direction is not a sufficient cause for what happened. I'm open to the sense that it plays a role, but not a defining one. Some historical works mention it as a popular canard, do you have any references for it as fact? Kbthompson 00:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn, now I've reverted vandalism on Munich and Frankfurt, I'm cursed to watch them for ever more. I don't see any reference there to their particular Atlantic maritime climate. Seems to be, well, sort of central European, sort of, well, eh, continental ... Kbthompson 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for taking the trouble to put forward your arguments. I'll agree they are most well thought out ("In addition, the ready availability of cheap labour in the area led to particular working practices of piecework and casual labour." struck me as a possible reversal of cause and effect, though.) Let's then leave the article as is. Perhaps winds weren't such an important influence as I had thought. I'm not clear as to what vandalism issue you've detected on the Munich and Frankfurt articles. I haven't contributed to those articles.

It's good to have had have come across such a knowledgeable person! Keep up the good work! --Philopedia (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, we should all be held to account. This is not the first time the wind direction argument has been put forward. I've never found anything to justify it - but I'm sure someone will prove me wrong sometime. As to piecework and casual, what I was trying to put across was that the abundance meant the employers could get away with it. The later phrase is sadly unencyclopaedic! I'll think about the phrase. I read Munich and Frankfurt to see if I could find the wind argument used there. I couldn't but did identify minor vandalism, that I corrected - hence the whine! Anyway, cheers for the chat. Kbthompson (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Romany History

Im new to all this, the Romany article has been on wikipedia for some time now, what are people complaneing about, how do I find out. and sorry writing on here , I know no other way of contacting you. I find offensive and rasist that people are complaneing about Romanies. I re-wrote the article myself and it can all be verified through the BBC website romany routes or any webcontent of Orpington Gypsies. Im new to this and finding hard just to get a true honest facted article across.Diamonddannyboy

Not so new that you haven't already managed to get yourself accused of sock puppetry! Don't alter people's userpage, it is always regarded as vandalism.

On the internet, community based websites like wikipedia have developed a way of working over time. The best way to find out about such communities is to observe before jumping straight in. I'm afraid you are trying to run before you can walk, and as I said before it would be best to talk over the changes you wish to make on the talk page of an article. Simply adding unverified material is not the quality standard we aim for. This site is open, but it is owned and has established rules. Accusing people who have criticised your writing of racism will get you no where. You need to take a step back, find out how things are done and observe for a while. Kbthompson 14:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Romany Museum link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/voices/museum.shtml

I think I understand now with links to names that are not on wikipedia, ill sort that out.

The rest of the stuff on Romanies in Orpington can be verifed on the BBC website Romany Routes, corkes meadow was a large stopping area or as we call it a Atchin Tan or Kushti Atchin tan meaning good stopping place. If you could add that link I would be grateful and feel free to edit the article so that it is wikipedia frendly, I thank you kindly for your help with much Kom . 81.152.136.21 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I added that website to the external links, its a way of linking in to material that's not suitable for an encyclopaedia, but allows people to find further information. I hope it helps. I'll try to find some verification for the language, but as you appreciate, that might be difficult. I know kushti, it made it into cockney. Kbthompson (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello how does the Romany History orpington article look now see below, im having problems with st mary cray and romany tarveller which should show up blue. I have rewrote all this below can you look at it on the orpington discussion page, when I cut and paste it, it does not bring up web likns correctly.

Romany History Orpington For Romany History the beginnings please see Romani People on wikipedia, this is about the Romany History Orpington, Orpington and surrounding area was a rural area, and had many Farms, and kent had many Hop & fruit Farms so Orpington became along with other area's such as Erith a stopping area or 'Atchin Tan' One of the stopping areas was Corkes meadow 'Corkes pit' and Ruxley Pit another, Corkes pit1 is not there any more and has been built on, but it was near to the gas works in Sevenoaks road. The other area was Ruxley pit which would of been located at the top of chalk pit avenue. Many Romany families would have stopped at Corkes pit from all over the uk, not just the kent Travellers, in the 1960s, the hop farms started to use machinery to pick the hops and didn't require the labour from the travellers, also they started to use labour from abroad. It was now coming hard to find stopping places, and the council made it hard for travellers to stop. The council had to provide permanent stopping areas for these travellers. One such area is Star lane site which is one of the largest in the uk and St Mary cray as the largest group of Romany travellers, the lucky famlies got plot's on these sites and others took houses kenners with great upset around the corkes pit arealesson Hill others moved from kent, and continued to struggle to get work and find Kushti Atchin tans' After the Farm work tried up and the travellers could not follow the seasons for picking such as Fruit apples or pobble Cherries Gulos and potatoes and hops, and when it became over for the women and men to 'hawk'. The men started to look for local labouring work and many families settled. Many of the young travellers are very far attached from the old nomadic life of the Romany people that left India over 1000 years ago, some are worried that the Romany jib or language will be lost as time goes by, even travellers in there fourties can't speakroker full romany, there is only 1000 people in the uk that can speak Romany compared to Romania 40,000. The travelling life is now really over for the travellers, but they still stay in touch with some of there past, along with fruit picking the women would of made and sold pegs and flowers door to door which is called 'hawking' they would taken things to sell in baskets called 'kels' This way of selling is now illegal, and is sadly lost. The Brazil family in Marden are trying to show young travellers the past, along with others throughout kent, at the Romany museum. Some of the families from kent and who would of stopped at corkes pit are, RutherfordBhttp://www.journeyfolki.org.uk/tabid/689/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1522/Default.aspxaker,Buckley,Saunders,Scamp,Lee, Love, Jackson,Chapman, Arnold, French, Ripley,Stanley, Crittenden,Price, Webb, Marny, Smith, Roberts, Jones, philips, Renolds, Waller, Smith,Brazil, Ball, Elliot, Taylor, Driscol, Mead,Pateman,Beany,Ward, Dighton,James, Walker,Green, Ray and many more, most of the families still live in Orpington, and others live in kent or London. Famous Romanys from Orpington

[Gypsy Rose lee]]2 [[Gilderoy Scamp,Mark Ripley, Jonny Love, Private Walter Pateman3 Henry Jackson A book as been writen about Private Walter patemen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.249.188 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiya

Hiya KBT; you're still up and doin' then. I noticed you'd done a twiddly bit on the Haringey page. THat article finally got to me, so I thought I'd at least fiddle round the edges. I ended up doing the same with the celebrity obsessed Crouch End page.

Weren't you up for some role in Wikipedia? Did you get it? Vaya con Dios.

hjuk 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The only role I ever get is cheese and onion, I did contribute to some articles achieving Good Article status and one to Featured Article. There's some who are egging me on to spread it to some of the local articles. There's some nonsense about including non-breaking spaces and SI units in articles - that convert function is the easiest way to do it - now, numbers are like a red rag to a bull to me.

You've done a right good number on those north London pages (beyond Islington, is a foreign country to me ...); you could do with someone else to look them over and then go through the process to see if you can make it to at least GA standard. (They can't be that far off, and the process improves the articles no end). Kbthompson (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done on the GA/FA status and thanks for the feedback. How wd I go about getting someone else to look over the articles? Or is there someone you'd suggest? hjuk (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One way is to advertise for a {{peerreview}}, it always seems to lead to a sickening lack of interest on all parties parts. If I get a chance I could take a quick look. The other was would be to propose them for WP:GA, you'd soon get short shrift if they're not up to the mark. It might be helpful to have a quick look at WP:UKCITIES to see the kind of thing expected. I'd be interested in the outcome - and don't be afraid to ask for help at WP:LONDON. I'd do one at a time, it can be quite a stressful process! Kbthompson (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Goo Glearth

By the way, searching for the Hornsey co-ords on Google Earth just now, I noticed that both Harringay and Hornsey have just apppeared on the Wikipedia layer - both with different looking co-ordinate formats. So I'm begining to wonder if it isn't just a kind of random selection that gets scraped. hjuk (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect, it's one of those things they're working on ... 8^) Kbthompson 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stage Coaches

I wonder if there was a stage coach inn at Kingsland where horses were changed? I'm sure there must be data on the posting stations of the Old North Road etc somewhere? And maybe even on-line...Colin4C (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought it was too near the terminus at Bishopsgate? If you read the BritHist online article, there's about six inns by the 16th century. Communications in the Middlesex vol tends to give information on coaches - buses actually started down that road at a preposterously early historical time (it was a reasonably well made road). Kbthompson (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the very small local population these inns must have catered to the passing coach etc trade on the road. As such I think the place must have had more importance vis-a-vis Dalston (which is on the road to nowhere as far as I can make out) than the Middlesex volume seems to accord it. I'm tempted to do an original research pub crawl on Kingsland High Street, next time I'm in London. Colin4C (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Faulkners fish and chip shop is literally the best in London - it's a couple of junctions below Dalston Junction. There's little good beer to be had round there! Kbthompson (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jack the Ripper

I fixed indents on the talk page so they were properly indented per conversation, but when I added replies to different comments I think I might have broken up the indents and where your reply was intended... As far as spearate article for Whitechapel Murders, I don't know now if that was a reply to Colin's point in general or a later comment. If you want to fix the indents or placements to what you intended per the flow of conversation, feel free. DreamGuy (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank your for that. It's somewhat silly of you and Arcane to fiddle with them, and them spend so much effort arguing about it! I just add my piece at the end.

It was a reply to Colin's point but also to the message immediately above it, but the notion was also something I suggested earlier. I did not wish to press the point then, as it appeared overly contentious. The issue of the 11 murders, is I think, separate from the Ripper investigation, but at the same time linked. I would like to see these things dealt with in a clear, logical fashion that neither restricts the reader to a single PoV, nor adds to the confusion. I would hope that some accommodation can be reached that encompasses the extreme views that sometimes seem to colour a number of different contributors. I think most of you have more common ground than you may think. Kbthompson (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lionel Bart's debts

You amended Bart's article to say that he had debts of £73,0000. Should that be £73,000, or £730,000? Wimstead (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In 1972, £73k was a substantial sum of money - and I apologise if I didn't reference it - I'm better behaved now. I know in 1972 my bank manager was pursuing me for £200 as if it were the end of the world ... (It was, I was forced to attain paid employment at at a mere £2400). I will attempt to find the reference if you like, but in those daze, I normally added them as external, rather than inline. Kbthompson (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There ya go ... source. Kbthompson (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of people...

What would you suggest doing with this and this? MRSC • Talk 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember the intensely annoying Cosmocatz? 8^). Is there a {{Very long}}? Yes, there is, maybe add that too! Kbthompson (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Huntingdon

Referring to your correction reversal... http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Cromwell&diff=next&oldid=173077299 ...I think you should double check. Huntingdonshire is one of the traditional counties of England? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. My 'correction reversal' was based on:

At the time of the Domesday Survey Huntingdonshire had an independent shrievalty, but from 1154 it was united with Cambridgeshire under one sheriff, until in 1637 the two Counties were separated for six years, after which they were reunited and have remained so to the present day. The shire-court was held at Huntingdon.

My reading of that was that he was born in Cambridgeshire, and the county only had a brief re-existence from 1637. So, he was born in Cambridgeshire in 1599, and the prior or later existence of Huntingdonshire for a brief period is not relevant, I can be wrong. I'm sorry if I did not explain my reversal sufficiently. Kbthompson (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess then that someone should also look at the Huntingdonshire entry. Have a look at the list of Historic counties of England. Also see the Cambridgeshire entry, which says Huntingdonshire was separate until 1965. Also see http://www.abcounties.co.uk/counties/map.htm --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I know little about historic counties - it tends to be complicated enough in London, where the occasional bit of Kent lies on the North bank of the river. I looked for some kind of independent verification, there's an active Huntingdonshire historic society promoting the county - for instance. The county is independently dealt with in the 1861, 1881 censuses, which suggests its existence is not as simple as that suggested by its article. If I had time I would look at a Vision of Britain - but that treat will have to wait until I have the time! Cheers, and apologies if I did get it wrong. Kbthompson (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I leave it to you to decide upon, but I think the direction is that it should be considered a separate county, despite the obvious frequent administrative links with Cambridgeshire over the centuries.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The occasional county of Huntingdonshire? I think most of his bio's state that he was born in Cambridgeshire, and we should probably leave it at that - without further evidence to the contrary. Difficult one. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

For just mentioning the issues and options vis a vis the Whitechapel Murders I get this:

Colin, you are doing it again. This is not an acceptable use of the article discussion page. It is precisely the sort of personal attack-ish, disruptive behavior we would see from another user on that page. I think we are at the point where you have to ask yourself if you are going to be able to edit professionally with DreamGuy. If you cannot, i must ask you to withdraw, as your behavior is disruptive, and you know that the editor in question will take utter joy in having you blocked and therefore marginalized. If you want to give him that satisfaction, continue adding edits like that. If you are willing to work constructively, please try that series of posts again. I would suggest you self delete your additions and re-add non-attack versions of them very, very quickly, before the other editor has a chance to respond. As well, do not mix them within the edits of Stephan's edits (as refactoring another's posts alone can get you blocked). I urge you to decide how you are going to approach this article discussion and decide rather quickly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colin4C"

If you look at my comments you will see that I just mentioned the issues not anybody's names. It is Arcayne who has maintained the latest slagging match with DG not me for Christ's sake! Help! Colin4C (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That was answered on your talk page, this is just to get the conversation to archive. Kbthompson (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's

Thanks for the message. Looks like you're doing a good job expanding the article. I made some copy edits yesterday, but I'll try to work on referencing tonight. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Gotta go pick up K now, probably that's me for the day. All yours! Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I did more copy editing. Do you still need me to track down more references? Check out the new ballet ref I added. It looks to me like part of the ballet stuff originally came from this ref, and you may wish to rewrite a bit more to avoid any appearance of a copyright issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've put it in for GA to see if we can get it sorted over the next couple of weeks, then move it for FA when everyone's had a good bash at it. I thought perhaps that ballet stuff looked a little suss. I didn't change it because I don't really know that much about it! If you feel there's any more that you can do, I'd appreciate it, as ever. I do think it's a fascinating story - particularly with two, three and sometimes four groups of people fighting for control over the theatre - and it all dates back to problems with the way the leases were grouped together to build the thing! Kbthompson (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean This is London, I looked at that but thought that it was more likely to have been copied from here! I don't think we need to change it too much, but it would be good to find a better source. Kbthompson (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I added this sentence: "The history of the theatre involves a series of struggles for control of its management and ownership, because several parcels of land had to be leased to build and expand it, and and these separate leases, with varying mortgages and lease terms, caused ongoing disagreements among the owners and lessees." Please revise if I failed to capture the essense of this issue correctly. The article has certainly come a long way. Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about it! I think the text is a bit complex, but the situation is complex - I did simplify some of the arguments in the main text, as I found my original version unreadable. The original text in Survey of London actually requires a flow chart drawn to see who's who and when, with shifting allegiances between two (sometimes three) groups who would prefer to see each other dead, rather than compromise ... I've seen some wiki edit wars like that!

The more I read, the more I find a nugget - like Haydn - and then have to chase it down to find out more detail.

Despite that, I think it is rather complete now. A few more images, perhaps but otherwise I don't think there's much more to say. If we can get the comments back from the GA process, we should be able to FA it in the new year. I'm off to the south coast for a couple of daze of debauchery, but should be back to deal with things after the weekend. I advertised for comments at WPLondon and (our friends) at WPOpera, hopefully they'll have some comments, or maybe even review it!. Thanks for all your help. Kbthompson (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(Some ago) I had a go at Royal Opera House. I think that would be a good selection to go through the same process with, next. With a bit of work it could be up to GA quickly, with FA in the future. Kbthompson (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of 'knocking up a quick article before dinner', take a look at United Company. I thought it demanded further explanation. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychogeography

Just picked up a really demented looking minor novel of the London psychogeography school. 'The Outcasts Burden' (2003) by Adam Daly. Looks terrible, but it only cost me a pound from a charity shop and has a nice cover featuring some rusty tinged urban wasteland with a Sphinx in the background and also contains obligatory alternative dimension London map inside... Adam seems to have signed it as well. Maybe he'll become famous one day, and the book will be a collector's item, or maybe not...Colin4C (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ... much of what I write is literally off the top of my head. I believe in seizing the moment, creativity dictating craft.[2] I'd ask for your money back! Kbthompson (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also he seems to have shamelessly adverted to my personal life, without asking my permission, in his first novel 'The Nameless Revolutionary' (700 pages): "about a man who single-handedly takes on the whole of modern civilization and goes on the rampage throughout Europe and the rest of the world, returning to London and Hampstead in dialectical mode at the end". Colin4C (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

C. J. Phipps

Hello, and thanks for the comment about C. J. Phipps. I turned it into a disambiguation because in biology texts, Constantine Phipps is routinely referred to by initals and last name, just like any other scientist. See a google search: [3] Scientists don't put much stock in titles like "Baron Mulgrave". I came across this problem because the Polar Bear article used to say it was first documented by C. J. Phipps, the architect - not quite right. As to other work that needs to be done elsewhere on the encyclopedia, I always just figure that someone will get around to it someday. I'm just a volunteer.--Yannick (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but I regard a resort to disamb as a drastic step - and do try to fix the references. I feel justified in whingeing about work being created for others - that's not to say you're wrong, merely that to do such a thing requires more work. Thanks for the explanation, which seems eminently reasonable. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

... a Merry mid-winter festival to you all ... and peace in the world (particularly between wikipedians) in the New Year. Kbthompson (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2U Kb. By the way, have you ever been to the London Hospital Museum on Whitechapel Road? Apparantly it includes stuff on the controversial JTR and the Whitechapel Murders: http://www.medicalmuseums.org/museums/rlh.htm. Probably worth a visit. Colin4C (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It was never open when I was ... and my normal appointments were in the equally ancient post-graduate computer centre (which was in a Victorian attic) - mainly because it was the only location permitted to sys-admin functions - otherwise I would never have left my commodious office in the Queen Mary medical sciences building ...

... and a happy new year to you. I am girding myself to go 'sarf of da river' later. Kbthompson (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Small thing (RFA)

I was just wondering if, although maybe wait a couple days into the new year, I might give you a nom for this? Simply south (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And happy new year. Simply south (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the proper thing down, maybe not create the page yet.

Simply south (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Once i have created the page which i am currently in the process of doing, you just need to answer the questions and formally state your acceptance there, before i can transclude this onto the RFA page. Simply south (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! :) Simply south (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - maybe I should stop wearing the wife's clothes ... Kbthompson (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And obviously the page has been created. Simply south (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and you do deserve it. Simply south (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting nothing in return so no need to apologise. Even if i was, still no need to apologise. I, just like many, respect you. Simply south (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say i haven't had any conflicts in the past. OK they have probably been quite minor and have been generally discussed until a compromise is reached. Other times it has been pointed out where i was wrong and other times when others have been. Remain civil. I think i am quite an agreeable person... So generally, i have no secret. Simply south (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep doing what you are doing. As for humour, do not give it up and do use it occaisionally to lighten things or just generally use it occaisionally. Remain patient. Etc. Make a few bad jokes maybe, i don't know. Simply south (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... Simply south (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, i've added an optional question on your RfA. Simply south (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is just a standard question i ask any admin to scope them out and that. See here Simply south (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not right yet... I still want to familiarise and contribute otherwise a bit more before i try again. I wonder whether i should have put that on the editor review? Simply south (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's that man again

Just aquired Nicholas Connell's 'Walter Dew: The Man Who Caught Crippen' (2005) available in paperback (Sutton). This includes long extracts from Dew's autobiography 'I Caught Crippen' including a narrative of Dew's experiences of being a detective constable in Whitechapel (H Division) at the time of the Ripper murders. In these extracts Dew describes what Whitechapel was like at the time, gives portraits of his detective colleagues at the Whitechapel police station and gives a quite detailed account of the investigation and his part in it and of the contemporary panic which gripped London and the nation at the time. Dew's original book is remarkably expensive now, so this is probably the best thing for non-millionaires interested in the contemporary police investigation of the strange case of JTR. Colin4C (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just got back from Nottingham, which was really quite pleasant. Have you tried libraries? Actually, have you tried reading any books about fluffy bunny rabbits to leaven this fare of death? The background from that book will be very useful in the Ripper enterprise. I feel the current intro' is deficient, but have frankly lost the will to live with all the pointless dissention and argument over every word. There is too much to do elsewhere. How about getting Music hall to FA? Her Majesty's Theatre is on its way to GA, so now would be a good time. Kbthompson (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Help request with vandalism

There seems to be some plonker determined to vandalise Turnpike Lane. Can you help or point me to someone who can. As much as I like Wikipedia I don't want to get into heavy anti-vandalsim wars. (Wimp) hjuk (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your page. HT sorted. Kbthompson (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Greenwich

I was just thinking exactly the same thing! Perhaps featured article status could also be aimed for, or do you have to get things certified as good first? We could incorporate some more of those histories I found as they are all in the public domain. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to put a reply in here - so it will archive - so, apologies for not adding it to your page. The normal route is peer review (which unfortunately is oft ignored, apart from the auto - although I did pick up some useful suggestions) - that's done - then take it to GA, that's normally tough enough to shake out the cobwebs and then it can go to FA.

I'd use BritHistory in paraphrase, many of them were indeed first published a hundred years ago - but they are being revised and republished, so some are last year. Paraphrase is good anyway, as it doesn't need to be long just readable. The main thing is to eliminate the lists and follow some of the principles in writing about settlements. Kbthompson (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hornsey maps

No, I think it was me being carless and not checking image copyright. I've just a second image from the same source on the Haringey page with a speedy deletion tag.hjuk (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Images are a tricky area - I think they do sometimes err on the side of caution - which makes putting up otherwise acceptable images sometimes difficult. I can't see (I thought it was heraldry) what the image was, but with material from London Boro's there's normally some justification. Kbthompson (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They were maps of the old boroughs which I got from someone else. Apparently they were OS. Any road up, I'll replicate via Openstreet Map. There can't be any complaint about that......can there? hjuk (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooo'er .... not my bag I'm afraid, maybe it should be ... If it is self produced, than surely you own the copyright? Kbthompson (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources for verification

Really sorry to keep comin at yer KBT. I wonder if I might ask your advice on another issue. The other day I created William Gentle (one of the founders of the Greyhound Racing Association, which articlew I also created - think Harringay Stadium and you'll ge the link; I hate loose ends.) Colonies Chris who seems to have decided to monitor my every step of late, for some reason, has just tagged the Gentle article with a needs more sources ({refimprove}) tag. The info I had was taken from his obit in a 1948 Guardian (have you disovered the Guardian archives yet? Fantastic resource!). There ain't anything else on him as far as I'm aware. Do you know what the situation is here? hjuk (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm - forget most of that - just looked at article history and saw he'd put an invisible tag in there saying "no such date". He's right. I put the wrong date in - Sept 31st. So hopefully that's dealt with. Is it unusual to have another editor following one's work so closely? It seems odd. Sometimes his edits are helpful, sometimes they seem finnicky and pointless, other times they're wrong. He seems a bit prickly, so I do my best to be sweetness and light. Any experience of this? hjuk (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of ways in which that can come about:

1. You're interested in the same topics, and they're on his watch list (actually he's added them to his front page, so probably that).
2. He's stalking you by looking at your contributions list.

If it's a considerable nuisance, then consider reporting it to WP:ANI, or back to WP:rfc if he's being unreasonable. I suspect it's sub-reporting sniping though.

If you remember back to when we first encountered, I corrected a few notions that you had (mainly quality issues), then when you seemed to be doing all right, got back to my own writing. Since then, I think your articles on the area have been a positive contribution to wikipedia. My attitude is the project needs volunteer writers and getting up their noses is counter-production. You might also consider asking for a {{peerreview}}, or alternately ask for additional input at WP:London.

Collaboration never harms any article, but that has to be collaboration rather obstructive behaviour.

Hmm, I thought WP-prickley was a policy, not an optional guideline 8^}. Kbthompson (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for the info. I think he's probably a good editor, in the main making a valuable contribution. Having delted my link boxes on the Harringay history pages, he designed the part of a series box, which I thought was wonderful. It's just a sense of being a little stalked by someone whose style is to dive in and correct rather than discuss first. I guess it's just the nature of Wikipedia.

But for me it does underline the importance of what I said in your rfd(?) nomination about how critical editorial collaboration style is. I look up WP:prickley! See ya. hjuk (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Him AGAIN!!

Can you throw any light on this just placed on my talk page?:

Please upload your free images to Commons to save the work of others later having to move them to Commons. MECU≈talk 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like I've breached normal practice, but I've never heard of this requirement before. hjuk (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't wait any more

Honestly, i think he's been busy elsewhere (1, 2), so let's just proceed, and when/ if her returns, he can contribute what he will. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a sort of reply on the JtR talk page. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll check that out, As per your suggestion on my Talk page, do you really think that E went after DG because he opposed her RfA? There were sixty some-odd others who were also opposed. Only DG garnered attention bc of his anon IP-using behavior and track record.

And yes, I would have supported your RfA, had I known about it. Congratulations. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As to the other matter: I think it was probably the totality of behaviour and the way he goes about things, rather than that specific incident. The way that was handled might have been the proverbial straw. Kbthompson (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I had felt it went beyond a straw, ending up with a haystack upon a deceased camel. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've updated the link above, since the subpage is going to be going away soon. And for the record, no, I didn't go after DG because of his antics at the RfA.  :) I just saw that there was yet another CheckUser on him, and I didn't want it to get (again) lost in his shell game, so I decided to speak up. I talked it over with a few other uninvolved admins, and we debated whether I should send my diffs to someone else so that they could provide them from a neutral third party. But since there were so many diffs, it started getting a little complex for me to adequately explain the entire timeline. So, I made a subpage. It was a pretty clear case once it was all laid out, and we decided that it would probably be okay if I just presented it myself. So, there you have it.  :) --Elonka 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions drop me a message at my talk page. Best wishes, WjBscribe 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do my homework, and as ever attempt to think twice and act once. Kbthompson (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Warmest Congratulations. If you ever any help or advice in the early days I'd be delighted to assist. Now get to work :) Pedro :  Chat  16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Homework before housework! I also have to get a new pair of rubber gloves - to go with the mop and bucket. Thanks for the offer. Kbthompson (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and you're more than welcome for the support and comment made. It's all absolutely true. And to get no opposes is just fantastic as well. --Regan123 (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very pleased and grateful for all the nice things that were said. I was thinking of canvassing opposing views, but then realised it was against the rules. I'll have to get the wife to provide me with some criticism, otherwise my head won't go through the door. I'm glad I didn't get a 100, or so voting - nobody realises how many 'thank you notes' that represents. Kbthompson (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to get the wife to provide me with some criticism, - you have to ask? :-) Regan123 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'll call my ex-wife ... don't want to get this one into the habit ... Kbthompson (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sorry about that question. Didn't think you'd have any problems dealing with it, which you clearly didn't. The behavioral stuff is critical and it struck me that there seemed to be little attention being paid to it. Guess I used your RfA as an opportunity to soapbox. If I'd have thought it would cause you any problems I wouldn't have done it. Many congratulations on your success. I'm sure you'll have your hands fuller than usual for a while. Do you get any training? hjuk (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of Homework to get on with, and probably a place where they 're-educate' you to ignore your old muckers, and allow the articles you watch to deteriorate. There's been mention of a 'mop and bucket' but I think as a newbie I get to clean the executive bathrooms with my tongue ... Kbthompson (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

I was happy to lend my support! Glad to see you with a mop and a bucket.... —  MusicMaker5376 17:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

... move yer feet, move yer feet ... Kbthompson (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Your unopposed election speaks for itself! All the best for a very happy, healthy 2008. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

... and I am truly grateful for the kind words. I think most of my nemeses are on blocks and bans at the moment! Kbthompson (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well done, KB. In your new capacity hopefully you can now do something about the drains round here. The effluent in some articles is stinking out the whole wikipedia. Anyway, musn't grumble yer 'onor. Colin4C (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta, the drains do smells something hawful. I have to work up to a rota-rooter. Nawh, you mind 'ow ya go, young whipper-snapper. No getting into scrapes in the school yard. Now, I think a parish beadle's coat and staff would be the correct dress for Victorian London. Kbthompson (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cograts from me too. Spencer^TC 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A big congrats. from me too, well done, you deserve it! Sue Wallace (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw shucks, thanks everyone. Kbthompson (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Open to Recall Tag

WOT! You mean that having voted for you I don't get the choice to recall you coz I'm not an admin. Wadda swizz. hjuk (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Read accountability! I think it's six users in good standing ... (or, is that why you think you're excluded 8^) ). Kbthompson (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Five minutes, five minutes ... that's all it took for the first enquiry as to how to desysop me ... five bl**dy minutes ... Kbthompson (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no one in their right mind would do that. Enjoy it all. I guess it's going to take some real self-discipline to stop it taking over your life now. hjuk (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to work out how all these extra buttons work first and remember not to press them ... damn ... that one worked the lights. Kbthompson (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! I hope you will do a great job as an admin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope I live up to the work. Kbthompson (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kbthompson (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement: Apollo Victoria Theatre

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Apollo_Victoria_Theatre. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

The paragraph relating to the architecture of the Apollo Victoria Theatre was copied directly from the theatre's website, and was used to supplement information in the previous revision, which was also copied from the theatre website. Instead of removing the existing plagiarised text, you actually added more - this created an almost exact copy of the theatre's official page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.20.55 (talk • contribs)

Interesting, can you show me the edit. I normally paraphrase material I find on websites and attribute the material. In respect of architecture, I would normally take as a primary source the English Heritage material and not that of the theatre - are you sure they are not basing their website on that material? I shall review it, but that is not my style of work. Kbthompson (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it. The wikipedia page is the result of heteroglossia (many editors), no single one added any of that material. Do you know the odds of that matching someone else's website? ... the odds on typewriting monkeys just shortened considerably. Since I cannot prove that material was nicked from here (well, not nicked, we give it away), I've restored the article with the offending section removed. Kbthompson (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is the case. Prior to your edit, the page contained the same text as the theatre's website, without the paragraph relating to architecture. Your edit inserted the architecture paragraph - it was copied from the theatre's website, and was positioned by you in the exact same place. This resulted in a complete copy of the text from the theatre website. Had you paraphrased information English Heritage, as you claim, surely you would have referenced this appropriately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.20.55 (talk • contribs)

It was referenced here on 28 April 2007. The text is based on Cathedrals of the Movies David Atwell, Vol.1 Pevsner. Kbthompson (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone send the old text to me? I'll see if I can rewrite it to avoid any copyright issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of the wiki text has been in place since at least 16 Dec 2005, subsequent amendments have been made by multiple editors to create a text which is identical to the current text on these people's website. Applying Occam's razor, it is more likely, the text here was copied from us. Kbthompson (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a note at WP:ANI to see how to proceed. Obviously we don't want to infringe anybodies legitimate copyright, but the text appears to have originated on wiki. Kbthompson (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you can restore the old text and 1) drop a footnote to say that the text appears to have been copied at the Apollo Victoria Theatre's website without the GDFL notice; and 2) put a prominent NOTICE in a box on the talk page explaining this issue. Let me know what you decide. What else was cut besides this history section? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the history section from primary sources. This is mostly to eliminate any further discussion on the matter. If you can improve the article, feel free. Don't use london-theatreland, to my mind it was copied from here (so, isn't a reference) and contains errors that deviate from (for instance) The Stage. Some details from the original article are lost - mainly because they're not capable of independent verification. In particular what was lost was the history of the many individual contributions made in the creation of that article. Kbthompson (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ITMA

Seems he has been banned for 96 hours as of 4 o clock this morning. So we have four days to make merry and free before getting back into the bunker and waiting for the next rocket attack. Colin4C (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got to go and meet a 'social builder' in Swanley - back later (enough problems, anyway - see above) ... Kbthompson (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Social builder? What's that? A contractor who is all chatty while counting your money? ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I have fallen amongst a strange bunch of thieves who seek to enrich both society and the pockets of their church (I will not say which one). Believe me, I've also seen the 'housing association' social builders. They are worse, they seek to create value out of nothing and large amounts of public money for their bottom line. Heavens forbid, but I'm beginning to think an old fashioned capitalist, made to provide a certain proportion of social units (ie low cost) is a godsend. Anyway, it's a damn site simpler social benefit equation! I think it's Tuesday's Guardian (Society pages) that carried a lengthy story on one of them. This arises from a pro-bono effort to improve the efficiency of the process of disposing of surplus church land. Lord this, Baroness that ... I'm quite happy to write about them, but having to deal with them is a bit off. Kbthompson (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

'Eads Up

Thanks for the heads-up on the category discussion. Have exprssed my view on the relevant page. hjuk (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive Kbthompson (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper Merge

How's the merge getting on? Have you seen the current Jack the Ripper page? Someone has provided us with a picture of the nasty chap. No, not him, JTR! Colin4C (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a message, then noticed this rather disreputable chap. It's pure speculation - so, I'm not particularly sure it's worthwhile, but it keeps the kids quiet. Rather interferes with the merge ... Kbthompson (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As a fan of music hall I am looking forward to the shenanigans. Could be a classic farce. Colin4C (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the merge completed? The current page looks exactly like the one which was frozen rather than the Jaysweet version! Colin4C (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kbthompson! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 14:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kbthompson (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Motto/arms

Yes. Some gave a very interesting insight into the boroughs/councils. I had trouble with the copyright status of those arms once before. Maybe we can get some sort of special tag invented just for them if problems occur again. MRSC • Talk 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Kbthompson (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

idea?

Let's form a small RFA class of 9. These are admin who became admin at about the same time. John Carter, Jeepday, Rudget, Jayron32, Archtransit, Appraiser, Kbthompson, Canley, J-stan. It would just be a friendly support group or like a school class. No administrative tasks needed, just know each other so if we need an opinion or want to discuss something, we'll be there for each other. Archtransit (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

See today's contribs by User talk:168.8.238.50. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Three occasions doesn't get you banned - needs to be four warnings, then take it to WP:AIV. Disappointed that you were the only person to issue a warning! There are special rules about schools, but they've begun to crack down on them more recently - particularly as some teachers seem to make vandalising wikipedia a part of the lesson! I nearly did block someone today, but they stopped at three warnings. Anyway, 40 mins ago was my birthday, so now I need to go sleep it off! Kbthompson (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Feliz navidad, bon anniversaire..............etc hjuk (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ta Kbthompson (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind

I am trying to convince DerHexer, a fellow adminstrator, that you need four warnings before blocking instead of the two warnings he usually gives vandals. If you don't mind, I am planning on quoting you from the section "Persistent vandal". Do you mind? --Kannie | talk 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. If a vandal's persistent (four warnings) and active (now), then you can block them. To block after one, or two, warnings is possible - for (say) vandalising a user page, personal attacks on other editors, or if they persistently try to add back slander after it's been removed - oh, yeah and for 3RR! Two warnings and you're out, is a bit keen for the childish stuff. Kbthompson (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia abuse

Hi Kb. Do the admins appove of articles like this: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases in which one group of people is singled out to be systematically denigrated? As far as I know Catholics are no more prone to sexual abuse than any other religion or group. This sounds like POV of the highest order. I think the admins should do something about it. Colin4C (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to expand Category:Sexual abuse to provide religious balance. Do I approve of sexual abuse, no. Is this the complaints page, also no.

Any organisation that is heavily involved in the pastoral (and spiritual) care of people is likely to get allegations of this kind. The Catholic church, in particular, took on large scale responsibilities for the care of children that the State would not look after. Because of its, almost unique, shallow reporting structure (parish priest to God, only four steps!) it lacked organisational control over individual members of its staff and this lay it open to massive law suits. Does this happen in other religions claiming a direct line to God, probably.

By contrast, if I'm working for an educational institution, I'm not allowed to have any relationships with my students - even the OU where some are even older than me! If I'm working as a psychologist, the only relationship can be financial and as a computer scientist - I can only come all squidgy over the hardware. Kbthompson (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My worry is that allegations of sexual abuse are the oldest black-propaganda trick in the book, going back to when the Romans accused the Early Christians have having all-in sex orgies at their prayer meetings. Henry VIII and Hitler employed the same allegations against the Catholics for their own ends. I thought the wikipedia was about knowledge rather than being a conduit for poltically motivated propaganda targeting one group more than another. Also some of the sources used in that article are explicitly anti-homosexual and are confusing that with child abuse. Basically the article is a disgrace. Colin4C (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted it out. Colin4C (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

... and for once people have supported you in your changes. There's a first time for everything. Kbthompson (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Norman Wisdom, etc Just a bit of fun. I'm off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.100.61 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as well, you were about to be 'right off'! Kbthompson (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingston

Hi KBT Your constant efforts to maintain the quality of Wiki keep hitting my Watchlist, so many thanks. However I noticed you knocked out a link to the Thompson Local in Kingston. I find this an almost indispensible publication in hardcopy and was quite glad to see it is online. Perhaps there is a policy on links to local directories but is it really spam? Just a thought. Motmit (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a toughie ... strictly it's WP:SPAM from WP:EL, but if you want to discuss it on the talk page and obtain a consensus for keeping it - then I'm sure you'll be protected from any 'drive-by' correctionism on my part. I know some of these things can actually be useful, but there's essentially a policy of not advertising paid for services on wiki, and this is one. I'll leave it to you - and try to restrain my propensity for hitting that rollback button ... Oh, and thank you for the cack-handed compliment - you make me sound like one of those 'bot things! Kbthompson (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you thought it cack-handed - sometimes I feel like saying 'I like what you are doing'. I'm not too concerned about the link, but I did note it was from a newbie who for once didnt seem to have an agenda. DBTR. Regards Motmit (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination of Her Majesty's Theatre

I've failed the article because it has little coverage of the current architecture of the current building, and of the previous building, thus failing the broad coverage criteria of the GA criteria. Also there were issues with the picture captions, some quotations that needed to have footnotes right on them, and with the Manual of Style over quotations. If you disagree with my assement you are welcome to take the article to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Overall it's a very well researched article, it just is too focused on the past history, and not enough on the current. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that, it provides a road map for moving the article forward. Kbthompson (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kb. I am home from the hospital, but in quite a bit of pain and cannot spend too much time on Her Majesty's today. I'll try to look at it more tomorrow. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem mate, get well and later you can tell me what happened. The article just needs your estimable attentions for proof reading my revisions and additions, and checking thru' the list of revisions that were requested to ensure I've met the standard - then, we can bang it in again for a quick review. If you're not around for a few days, I shall expect a copy of the Dr's certificate. Kbthompson (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have hopes of beating the weather and getting out myself. Should be back around 24:00 or so Wikipedia time, if you want to put it up then. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got back. I guess you've got snow, we've got rain, rain and more rain. I'll stay up past my bed-time ... maybe my US collaborator will pick up any additional comments you may have, but for me, it'll probably have to wait til morning (UTC). Kbthompson (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm home for a bit longer, I took a quick look and everything looks pretty good. If you wanna do it quick, I'm still getting caffeine in my system so I'll be home for a bit longer.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Music Hall Lists

We could put the lists at the end of the article as an appendix??? Just bought an incredibly brilliant book on music hall: 'The Last Empires: A Music Hall Companion' (1986) by Benny Green. I recommend it. Thinking that music hall is an incredibly vast subject and also odd that out of the whole wiki-cyber-universe it is mostly just you and I who take an interest in it. A lot on our plate...but now that we seem to be free - for the time being at least - from knifing attacks on the mean streets of Whitechapel it might be possible to devote more time to the subject...Colin4C (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Steady ... there are two immediate concerns.

1. Write an introduction to Music hall that meets FA, that means at least turning those lists into some kind of prose (otherwise it won't get FA).
2. Ensure that there's enough info for people to follow it up
3. Extend the coverage of historic theatres, OK that's three ...

That's enuff for a start. Beyond that, we can extend the bios on music hall stars, push the big lists out to separate articles, say, Music hall artistes, Music hall songs, Music hall theatres, etc.

With Last Empires ... you could take a look at some of the Stoll-Moss articles, too. I've heard Roy Hudd's book is also good! Kbthompson (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So have seperate articles rather than list-appendices? I guess that could work. Yes, probably a good idea - e.g. the music hall song selection at the moment is mostly my personal favorites rather than being comprehensive. Colin4C (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We also need to convert those 'copyright free' MP3s to OGG and load them wikicolumns - we won't get it through FA otherwise ... Kbthompson (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems that music hall (possibly) still exists: http://www.playerstheatre.co.uk/stop_press.htm Colin4C (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's always the Brick Lane music hall in North Woolwich - the Players have been trying to get it together for 20 years - after financial problems and a disastrous split. Despite themselves, they do manage to put on a show every now and then! Kbthompson (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Beckton Gas Works

Hi, thanks for your recent rating of this. Any specific suggestions for improving it above B? I see you have removed the infobox, which means the handy little map has gone. I think something along the lines of 'Infobox UK power station' for other types of site would be very handy for this purpose. Have you come across anything similar? Pterre (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also how did use of the spelling of sulfur, sulfate etc used here (by me) strike you? Personally I was brought up (though only to A level chemistry standard) spelling with a ph, but I think it is taught with an f these days. Perhaps in an article about a Victorian institution in England we should use the old money? Pterre (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the article. For reference, hitting the globe, by the co-ordinates, brings up a local map. As far as I know, there's currently nothing in the pantheon of templates that cover this quite unique place. I just know it's not a settlement!

Personally, I'd spell the elements/compounds with a 'ph' - but that's just my personal preference (same epoch, I guess).

I rated it 'B' because it contains the main elements of a good article, I doubt if there's much more to be said - although there are entire books on the site. From here you could request a 'peer review', or follow the guidelines for WP:GAN - if you look there you should see some suggestions for getting it up to GA status. Good luck and thanks for extending the article and adding some illustrations. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maltby

1979 film - I'm not sure about it - I didn't add it. Was it released posthumously? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you'd done it! Wasn't me ... Kbthompson (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Motto\advice\random sentnce

No this message is not a motto, i suppose i was following your advice and this is just a random comment i suppose ftvuygyuhiukhliufrtdytf. I've reworded that above on my userpage as yes it it probably the wrong advice. Simply south (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Que? It's late, possibly too late. Kbthompson (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He's back

And just redirected the Whitechapel Murders article, before I restored it. Batten down the hatches...Colin4C (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor has been encouraged to discuss their changes on the talk pages. Kbthompson (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

need help on JTR article

Hello,

I was watching a series of edits by Colin4C on the Jack the Ripper page...they seemed to be ok. I was going to check them out in summary but then they were all apparently reverted and declared to be blind reverts (what I saw had summaries). I can't access those now for comparison..but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the way of it. Can an admin look at Colin4C's edits?

I can tell from talk pages that this is some kind of edit war that you are familiar with..please help. Thank you, Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would take a better man than I to rein in DG's staticism and C4C's revisionism. As ever I will do what I can to confine the argument to the talk page - and keep it substantive. Kbthompson (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be easier to ask you to appraise an admin you can bring up to speed on DG and the article's past so they can step in and be the voice of reason. That would keep you out of it and allow you to still edit within the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the Frontiers of Knowledge

This is one I created yesterday: Miss London Ltd.. Colin4C (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit half-arsed .... have a look at Comedy films of the 1940s and British films of 1943, you might want to add it to some of those lists. Kbthompson (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are just so hard to please these days...Anyway I have ordered Arthur Askey's autobiography for Monday: which might contain more info on the film suitable for wikipedians and others... Colin4C (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

-fixed, it's pd-old (1867) Kbthompson (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That'd be bots running faster than I can fix it (see above)! Kbthompson (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

KFC

Thanks for sending the link to the page with your warning. 86.146.75.195 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive Kbthompson (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like your block made much difference. 86.159.91.138 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cover art

The reason that StupidBot tagged the image was because someone changed the NAME of the article (they added the word "(book)") So, StupidBot did not see that the Fair use summary referred to the correct article. It should be alright now. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

duh .... Kbthompson (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cockpit Theatre

Hi there. I have removed the Cockpit Theatre you added to the Westminster Kingsway College article as the theatre actually belongs to the City of Westminster College.--Onthemat (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied there, archive Kbthompson (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah, I'm starting to understand what happened here. Two colleges did indeed merge in 2000, but one was Westminster College and not City of Westminster College (formerly Paddington College). The two have similar names but are not related. I became aware of this problem when an email landed in my inbox that had made its way around all the 'powers that be' at City of Westminster College. They were a little miffed that their theatre was credited to another institution! Another user kindly created the article following my post here: Talk:Cockpit_Theatre. Could you help to undo the incorrect redirects currently pointing to the Westminster Kingsway College article please? I can provide further information on the history of the Cockpit Theatre, Marylebone to help create a fuller article.--Onthemat (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for fixing all that. Will be developing the article over the next week. All the best--Onthemat (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the older bull was right

See this, and Let me know if you don't get the aphorism in the title. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, they've corrected the spelling ... I have never seen anyone wriggle so much to avoid facing the music. If he apologised and behaved reasonably, I think it would have just all blown over. Kbthompson (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pinter

I hope I am replying in the correct way. I received a final warning for vandalism with regards to Harold Pinter. I have not the faintest idea who Mr Pinter is, however as I am currently in a school building would it be possible that you are somehow penalising all who use the school network to access the web for the actions of an individual student? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.197.37.57 (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

hi! it seems someone used the same ip-address as you do now 6 hours ago to make two less-than-perfect edits to this article [4] [5]. if you'd get a user account, you could be distinguished from this other guy and wouldn't be bothered with warnings meant for other people again. -- ∂ (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's

I took care of all but two of Tony's new comments. Please answer the one about "premières". This is a UK-style article, so if this is correct UK style, you can just say so, I think. U.S.-style would not use the accent, 'cause we're too barbaric to use funny accent marks here.  :-) Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the queue image sound like a workable idea? You also might want to take a look at my comment to Ssilvers. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, the suggestion would not be “gaming the system”. There is legitimate precedent and I’m happy to locate the Eiffel Tower discussion for you, if so desired. The suggestion was made with the perception that having some Phantom-related photo was of the utmost importance; this is an imperfect solution, but the only way to accomplish that goal without violating (or employing) fair use or getting you wet (you could always, by the way, just remove the image for the time being and wait for most hospitable weather). The caption, I’m afraid, is a non-starter; it does not impact the contents of the photo, NFCC or the license tag. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to message again, but I suppose I just need to get this off my chest: upon reflection, I’m a bit offended by the “gaming” assumption and am not sure what to make of Ssilvers’ removal of the discussion. I haven’t made the time investment to articulate my concerns or open the FUR only to undermine my own efforts with backhanded tactics. I hope and trust the insult wasn’t your intent; please know that my adherence to and respect for policy is quite strict. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As my talk page states clearly at the top, I remove any and all discussions from my talkpage when I no longer need them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So cruel, so cruel .... to send me out on a night like this .... Kbthompson (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll move the German image to the commons; it has a GFDL license. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done - Image:Hermajestystheatre2.jpg ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion to FA, Kb. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --GuillaumeTell (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

JTR edits. Again

Looks like he took your comments on the discussion page to heart, for all of 5 minutes. Why is it that this person is allowed to revert war his pet version into the article and when others ask him politely and then more firmly, it is they who are considered to be 'revenge reverting'. The page was hardlocked for months because this ass-clown couldn't find some way to share nicely with others. He's been blocked, audited, AN/I'd and ArbCom'd repeatedly. What else needs to be done to get him to work with others. Encouragement doesn't seem to be doing the trick. Punitive action (ArbCom restrictions, blockings) doesn't seem to be an effective measure. Does this fellow need to be banned for the protection of the article and for general morale? If he won't learn to work with us (indeed, we are all misinterpreting the rules, according to him), then maybe he needs to find another sandbox to play in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The better question is why Arcayne thinks HE can revert war to add things that violate policy and makes constant personal attacks. "Ass-clown" is a good one. Bottom line is that he knows nothing about the case and insists that he owns it, whereas anyone with actual knowledge about the case get mercilessly attacked and harassed. Arcayne has never made any attempts to work with me, and instead he makes threats and attacks and claims about bias and so forth while violating policies left and right himself. DreamGuy (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you comments are rife with generalization inaccuracies - stuff that has been pointed out to you several times before. Of course I have attempted to work with you on several occasions. That stopped when it was uncovered that you were sockpuppeting through anons. Your general lack of civility towards others, institutionalized by your user page comments say that you don't think you ever do anything wrong. There is no way to deal with that, except to ignore you and ensure that the article stays a group effort, biding our time until you break enough rules again to be banned. I don't believe I have ever threatened you, but of course, you are free to point any instance of that out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes trolls live under bridges. But not everyone living under a bridge is a troll.

Can you both do me a favour and just calm down. Every little dig just sets the other off. It isn't worth the ulcers, really it isn't. The point is to improve the article, this is best done by achieving consensus. Heavens, the point is to enjoy improving the article. Only problem is because neither plays nicely, the innocent bystanders run off so as not to be killed in the crossfire. You're both cruising for a double spread feature in WP:Lamest edit wars. The best advice to both of you is WP:DFTT; take a bit of time over your responses to each other - you could even try letting others voice their opinions. Kbthompson (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I guess you have a point. He really isn't worth it. I'll keep it polite. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See, dig again. Try it without the dig ... There's no need for it and it's really just getting in the way of communication. Kbthompson (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Despite the irresistible attraction of WP I am managing to produce some good work offline. MRSC • Talk 08:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

HMs Theatre

Hi KBT, Thanks for your input on Charles Santley. I have added him, and also Tietjens and Giuglini, and linked them, in the HMs 1860s section as they were all so prominent there (I realise it doesnt want a list of everyone), and their articles have lots more detail about productions at the theatre. Hope you think that's good, best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

hiya, we just did a merge from Her Majesty's Theatre/temp, please check that what you were doing is still present in the text; as it was extensively changed there. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as you see I fiddled needlessly, though maybe it's worth repeating Giulia Grisi's christian name as there were two singers (also Giuditta) and you have mentioned the dancer as well. My original data is still there. best wishes and salutations, Eebahgum (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalin in Whitechapel

Re this recent discussion - there is an extended account of Stalin's stay in Whitechapel in a recent book by Sebag-Montefiore called 'Young Stalin'. I can just imagine him, Trotsky and Lenin discussing dialectical materialism in an East-End pub. Would make a great play...Colin4C (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'll reopen that particular bag of worms, at the moment ... 8^)

He seemed to be there under forged credentials, desperately seeking to prove he was a revolutionary - the Menscheviks wanted to bung him out and the likelihood is he was a police spy. He got the last laugh on his detractors, he slaughtered them all - a bit like the wiki RfA process (for settling old scores). I don't think he was important enough to get to Lenin and Trotters then, way before his rise to power. It may have been the 1903? meeting, or the 1907 meeting, but parts of it were held in a carpet warehouse on Whitechapel Rd - later a photography shop that I don't think exists any more. I was shown the room, years ago (then a humble stockroom). Lenin and Trotsky mixed with the liberal intelligentsia in Bloomsbury - and the conference had to borrow 3 grand to get home. A debt Russia repaid about 30 years later. We could do with the name of the church in which it was held - a quick google doesn't turn up any evidence.

Notice, it's mainly the beginning of the article that turns up detractors. Nobody made it into the culture section! On the whole, it survived the front page quite well.

Good to hear from you, there was some music hall at the Hackney Empire last Sunday - but I couldn't go. Watch out for the London meetups at the Pembury Arms. Sometimes I manage to get there (not this Saturday's one, though). I still haven't had a chance to dip into Benny Goodman, maybe we should try to get Music hall to FA, but it has a long way to go and there's probably three separate articles struggling to escape from the main one. Kbthompson (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I say I say I say ... did you know

On 11 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Canterbury Music Hall , 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.

-- well done, iVictuallers (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

... I fank yew! Kbthompson (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

UK places infobox

Places in the City of London, such as Bassishaw, show the Metropolitan police as being the local police force, when it should be the City of London Police. Could you go about changing this in the programming please? David (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think someone has changed the template coding to bring this about - why not ask them? Kbthompson (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Template:Infobox_UK_place/local has coding which means that it should read City of London Police for City of London places, but it doesn't seem to work. David (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now. The previous coding filled in the values from coded lists. I made City of London like a London Borough, but programmed the exceptions in data. This has gone back to doing it in coding, but in a very different way. It's a bit too esoteric for me at this time of night, and if I experiment, I'm likely to piss people off ...

I think what they've done is combine the various area specialities in one big switch. Possibly this is more efficient for coding, but a nightmare for debugging ... I'll look at it tomorrow, but you may wish to raise it on the talk page and check for recent changes to the code - it was working for the longest time. Kbthompson (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Warofdreams has managed to fix it now. :) David (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, a very capable man - and the code had his mitts all over it! Kbthompson (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Long John Silver and Pirates

I was surprised that you removed the references to the new book SILVER from Wikipedia, as well as other steps taken. First, you or someone else, linked that book to another book. Then, the references were removed because--allegedly--the book had not been published, when it had indeed been published, Later, you wrote that I was prescient about a book that was to be published this past Monday. The book was published in February. Additionaly, you seemed to disparage paperbacks. I have no such prejudice, but in any case the book is in hardcover. Additionally, you wrote that Wikepedia only allows notable books to be included as references. The fact that Entertainment Weekly gave it a rave review and Publisher's Weekly gave it a starred review, seemingly, does not constitute "notable" in your opinion. Further, my motives for adding the references were questioned. I am at a loss to respond to that accusation, other than to note that it is unfounded. Lastly, you seemed to link sales of SILVER with its reference in Wikipedia. I am unaware of that requirement, and do note that I did check the sales of the other book about Silver, and that it sold poorly. I have been watching this book's sales and it is selling well. It is unfortunate in an encyclopedia to let opinions, errors and a reluctance to check facts, interfere with the facts. I hope that this is the correct method to respond, but if not please advise me of the correct way. In any event, I would appreciate it if you would now restore the references that I added to Long John Silver and Pirates. Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you would allow me to restore them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaseperfect (talk • contribs) 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't surprised, you went on a spamming campaign mentioning this book throughout inappropriate pages ... including Oliver Cromwell. (It should be made clear for the casual reader, this person is not talking about references, but adding this book to a list of the works of Robert Louis Stephenson ... ) Kbthompson (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I clearly noted in my comments above that I was referring to the references to Long John Silver and Pirates. It should be made clear for the casual reader that a (highly praised and well-selling) novel about Long John Silver is an appropriate addition to a reference about Long John Silver. There is also a "popular" category for Pirates. Again, as this book is about the pirate that originally put the pop in pirates, it would be appropriate to add a reference to a popular book to it. (Or, must we wait for the movie?) None of the facts in my entry above are refuted. The references to Cromwell, I believed, was appropriate as he is, like other historical figures, subject to popular interpretation. I understand its deletion, and do see the other point of view on this though. The entry on Robert Louis Stevenson should have been more carefully thought out, although I am not sure that a reference to one of his great books, and a modern take on it is inappropriate. Certainly I do agree, in retrospect, that the location of the entry should have been a different one. I can, also in retrospect, see the other point of view on this matter. There was no intent to spam, and the rush to accuse seemed quite harsh to me. I ironically feel like I was spammed when someone added a link to another book to my entry about SILVER. I again ask if my entries regarding Long John Silver and Pirates may be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaseperfect (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I merely drew to your attention that your actions appeared like WP:SPAM, it is not for any individual editor to say it's alright to add this book to various places - decisions are made by consensus. As I said in my notes on your talk page, I personally felt that it would be OK in the section discussing Modern Portrayals under the Long John Silver article - someone else felt otherwise and blocked you. You might find more acceptance of its inclusion if you discuss the matter on the talk page of the relevant article before adding it - but these wholesale additions - particularly in the wrong place - are very likely to be removed and attract more warnings for inappropriate spamming. I accept there was no intention to SPAM, and that's why I left warnings and guidance on your talk page.

I would also advise you to read some of the links in the welcome notice I left on your page, this will give you a better idea of what is appropriate for wikipedia, what is not, and how it works. Wikipedia is not just a list of unconnected things, its an edited encyclopaedia and entries need to have a clear notability and relevance. Kbthompson (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Sears

Hi. I have removed Freddie from the youth team section at West Ham United as he has evidently moved on to the first team. Thanks for the heads up there. Cheers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I know little about footie - and I appreciate the help. I was just trying to sort out some of the damage that had been left lying around. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury Theatre of Varieties

I was in the neighbourhood of Waterloo Station last week looking for location of the Canterbury Music Hall - aided by a reprint of an old large scale Ordnance survey map of the area. According to the map the music hall was on Upper Marsh rather than Westminster Bridge Road as I'd been led to believe by the literature. Checking location, however, it seems that it is now underneath the recent Waterloo International railway line. However if you walk a bit further down Upper Marsh you will see a crummy 60s (?) block of flats called the Canterbury. I'm probably the only one who knows why. The whole area (including Canterbury Music Hall) was evidentally blitzed and re-developed in a haphazard way - with remains of an old bombed terrace still traceable amongst the brambles. As for where exactly Gattis-in-the-Road was I am still mystified. Colin4C (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean the former Waterloo International - best take your trowel next time. Lloyd puts it at 143 Westminster Bridge Road (probably renumbered) - it may be it was on a site between the two roads? Is there an article stirring? Kbthompson (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well...the strange thing is is that it appears to have been separated from Westminster Bridge Road by the (old) railway track leading to Waterloo, though I checked that it would have been visible from that road through the railway tunnel over Upper Marsh. I suppose it is conceivable that there was some sort of frontage on Westminster Bridge Road - but you would have had to go through the railway tunnel to get to the main building. Yes, it deserves an article...

Interesting account of the shocking low-life round about Waterloo in the mid 19th century in Michael Sadleir's novel 'Forlorn Sunset' - even includes a map showing the notorious Granby Street to the south of the station. So notorious indeed that they first renamed it and then demolished it - covering over the area with an extension of Waterloo station. Not that I'm shocked of course...man of the world me...say no more...Colin4C (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury Music Hall, we'll link it in an expand it over the next few daze. Kbthompson (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The railway was expanded between 1856 and 1861, with new viaducts cutting through the theatre. The auditorium was then reached (from the entrance) by a long tunnel (under the viaduct), with an aquarium built into the walls. That would fit an entrance on Westminster Bridge Road, and a theatre site, the other side of the railway. cheers! Kbthompson (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Matcham version (1914, presumed) was built opposite Gattis, by 1922 they both appear to be known as Gatti's Cinema? Kbthompson (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The aquarium has gone I'm afraid to say - I'm sure I would have noticed it as I walked under the tunnel (unless there were two tunnels, one for the Upper Marsh road and one for the music hall?). Just to make sure, though, I will re-inspect the site next week. The Canterbury was situated next to the Old Bower Saloon which was a bit further down Upper Marsh (on the site of a modern car-park). The latter was a theatre rather than a music hall I believe, and premiered Hazleton's theatrical version of Sweeney Todd (not to be confused with Dibden-Pitt's earlier theatrical version which premiered at the Britannia). Colin4C (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As true as my word I inspected the site last week and had a great Eureka moment as I realised that the '1st 4 Storage: Home and Business Storage Yard' on the corner of Westminster Bridge Road and Upper Marsh must have been the Westminster Bridge Road frontage of the Canterbury. And at the back of the yard what did I see but two partially blocked tunnels going under the railway leading in the direction of the main Canterbury Hall on the the other side! However, as it was private property I didn't feel bold enough venture through to check whether the aquarium was still there...Colin4C (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For nabbin a vandal by his boots. InvisibleDiplomat666 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, that is much appreciated ... Kbthompson (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

River Lee Navigation

Hi. Just a little reference about the canal being used to transport munitions. If you look at the Eley Brothers article the factory was used in the First World War. After the company moved, the premises were used by furniture manufacturers. With its close proximity to the Navigation it would have been ideal. I'm going to make some inquiries to find out if any of the Edmonton factories were used to produce aircraft parts. Cheers Northmetpit (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten trying to chase up that little rumour. There were plenty of 'arms clusters' around the Lee:

• Waltham Abbey Royal Gunpowder Mills
• Royal Small Arms Factory - Enfield
• National Projectile Factory - Hackney Marshes

Hmm, it wasn't Spitfires - manufactured in Southampton, but the primary factory came under attack, so production was decentralised between various small factories and garages between Southampton and Reading. Hurricanes in Gloucestershire, Mosquitos were manufactured by the Standard Motor Co. I remember an old factory known as the Spitfire Works on the Regent Canal ... can't really dig anything out of Google ... sorry. Kbthompson (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham. Oo7565 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Camden

Sorry about that. I just started using Twinkle and I'm still trying to fully figure it out. Nothing personal and no hostile intentions. Maybe you could recommend a better program because Twinkle just doesn't seem to be very efficient and tends to be problematic. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limonns (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I use VandalProof - when I can get it working (that's probably my fault); a lot of people use Twinkle, so probably best to just persevere with it. Installing pop-ups is probably worthwhile, as you can examine the history, previous contributions and stuff on the fly before making the revert. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into that. thanks again for the help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limonns (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image discussion

Regarding your preference for imagery, noted here, I was wondering if you thought the discussion was was about the complete removal of the Puck image. It wasn't; it was simply replacing it with the Whitechapel illo, and placing the Puck image lower in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the current image is a powerful lead image. I don't think the proposed image has either the same impact, or adds to it in anyway. Other's mileage may differ - and I won't shoot them for it. Kbthompson (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your input. So far, that sets the count at four in favor and one not in favor. Are you reading that as well? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow any consensus that's reached. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Can you please help me deal with this new vandal?: User:Georgethorne‎. He vandalised the George Thorne article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He's inactive and on a final warning. If he resurfaces with more vandalism, there's a good chance he'll be deep-sixed. Kbthompson (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Newbies

I used to be a teacher so I get very annoyed when someone leaps on a new editor from a great height rather than encouraging them. It is wikipedia policy also not to bite the newbies: which, however, the wikilawyers conveniently forget whenever it suits them. Colin4C (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody should at least be given the benefit of the doubt, and treated like a decent human being until they prove otherwise. The clash of 'life-crisis' middle-aged male egos is almost worse than the many examples of teenage angst and pre-teen smut around here. As to behaving like a complete * to new people who dare to display an opinion - well, if that were one of my students, I'd have to pass them onto the specialist PC-re-education brigade. Eventually, it comes down to the fact that if ever any of these people were to meet in real-life they would just be embarrassed by their behaviour. I think in about 8 years of running on-line forums for students and lecturers at the OU, I only ever had to suspend one student from contributing - and she went on to get herself chucked out of the university (eh, unheard of - she was seriously barking).

People here are all volunteers, and I've seen some worthwhile contributors just stop after one of those run-ins. There's no reason not to be robust, but WP actually has quite a useful set of rules for people to play nicely. Then there are people who are adept at using those same rules to take any complaint and pass it back to you neatly packaged in red tape. As I say, don't rise to the bait and don't let them get to you. Stick to the article content.

I must away ... people waiting for me to do some real-life w*rk (shiver) ... Kbthompson (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I guess that a fair few of wikipedia editors are kids who e.g. are expressing their enthusiasm for some juvenile vampire novel etc. See vampire literature. A bloody shame, if then some fat arse cranky middle-aged git editor starts ranting that said juvenile vampire novel is 'not notable' and gives the juvenile editor the benefit of his bile. I think the wikipedia is a valuable educational resource and that if kids are encouraged to participate rather than being shouted at by bilious middle-aged twats then there is hope for education and developing the life of the intellect in the general population. Colin4C (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the general idea, it is leavened by the need to produce a quality encyclopaedia. One of the notions is 'laddering' (if there is a theoretical basis) - slightly more clued up youngsters provide the less clued up ones with the clues needed to move forward. As to the vandals, you'd be surprised how well the warning system works and they don't need to be blocked - of course there are some that just can't stop themselves. There's as much pent-up anger in the teens as in the cranky old-gits - and as for the ones in the middle ...

Learn patience, Grasshopper, they are not evil, merely differently challenged. Kbthompson (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

---

On my way back, the car in front did a 900 degree pirouette on the A13, before slamming into the crush ... I'm not in the best of moods. Kbthompson (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I always knew you were a fan of The Sweeney. Colin4C (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ROFL-bonk Kbthompson (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Belvedere Incinerator

Hi there, I believe you are an administrator with an interest in London articles, hence raising this with you. I would appreciate a second opinion on whether the recent edits by User_talk:194.60.38.10 should be regarded as acceptable. I have no particular interest in this article but it is on my watchlist since I did a minor edit to it. The IP (registered at UK Parliament Information Systems, with many warnings) has made a number of edits to this article recently, most recently reverting what I felt to be in the interests of political NPOV. I'm not suggesting that local opposition to this plan should not be reported. However it would appear to me as an outsider to be a case of unanimous local opposition, including the (Labour) Mayor of London, the (Labour) MP, the (Conservative) Bexley council, an individual (Conservative) councillor who has organised a petition to central government, and no doubt local Greens, Lib Dems etc. Until recently the article included a link to an article (not on a party website) in which the local MP set out his evidence to a public enquiry. This has been removed and the article now contains no fewer than 6 'references' that are direct links to a party website. The article as currently worded could be viewed as a political puff for an individual councillor in the run-up to local elections. Am I being over sensitive? Pterre (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Put a tag on the page and advice on the talk page. I know nothing of the development, so can't really change it without a lot of research - since you're already clued up, maybe you could have a go. I'm sure much of the case against can be made from comments in the national and local press, without resort to lauding the praises of individual councillors and referring to party websites. Kbthompson (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do be temperate in your dealings with a parliamentary IP address, many people might read it. These blocks have to be reported to the Wiki-press office. They'll probably still make the block, but will dress it up in nice clothes, before releasing the news to the world. Kbthompson (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope your escapade on the A13 was not serious! Thanks for your response and comments on the article's talk page. I hesitated to edit it again as I felt it would just get reverted, but will have a go later if on-one gets there first. I think a reasonable balance would have something about councillor Leaf (not necessarily named) as he seems to have put a lot of work in, but it should also include the John Austin (MP) link because this spells out the case against as submitted to a public enquiry. As you say, there ought also to be a case in favour. At the risk of being branded a supporter of the scheme (about which I know nothing beyond having lived within wheezing distance of Edmonton incinerator for a while) I'll see if I can find anything that is not a PR puff from Cory Environmental. Pterre (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was plodding at 60 - the 4x4 passed me at about 80, then wobbled to the left, wobbled to the right. Did a triple sulco - and back ended the barrier going the other way. An object lesson in Newtonian mechanics - and not going too fast in the wet. I braked, hit the hazards and full fogs all in one smooth movement (it was pissing it!) .... Just a little too exciting for a Friday ...

the recycling website quotes the director of the incinerator project - so, that should probably go in. It's not a question of being a supporter, it's about providing balance. Personally, I don't see much difference between burning, burying, or dumping waste at sea. We shouldn't be accepting large quantities of packaging in the first place. As to their plan to cut down on plastic bags; I'm required to separate my recycling - essentially into plastic bags - go figure. The council doesn't supply dustbins - heh, there go more plastic bags. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Can you please help me deal with this new vandal?: User:Georgethorne‎. He vandalised the George Thorne article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He's inactive and on a final warning. If he resurfaces with more vandalism, there's a good chance he'll be deep-sixed. Kbthompson (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)