User talk:Adam37/Archive 1

Hello, Adam37, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Simply south 14:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for taking the time to review the Farnham article, much appreciated. Mrmatiko (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC) THIS ONE GOES OUT TO ALL MY READERS!

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey

Hi,

I've refounded Wikipedia:Surrey and I saw you were a member of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey. I was wondering, as you are a on the Participants List weather on not you would like to help improve more Surrey articles and make Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey and active Wikiproject again.

I hope you will come and help make Wikipedia: Wikiproject Surrey an active Wikiproject again.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Either reply or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey on my talk page.

Thanks ever so much. We're aiming to get Woking to a Featured Article status. If there is any part of Surrey that you're particularly good at please try to improve them articles. Please don't let Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey clash with anything else-Only do it if you want to! :-) I look forward to seeing you around.

Thanks again, pbl1998Pbl1998 (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cranleigh

Thanks for your work on the Cranleigh article, and in particular the excellent photographs. JH (talk page) 18:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Become a member and assessor of the Wikiproject:Surrey - we thank you for your demonstrated high scholarly standards and would welcome assistance with any areas of the project in which you may have an interest." That's very flattering. :) I ought to join the project, as I have lived in Cranleigh for almost all my life. JH (talk page) 10:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Adam37; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Chapel-en-le-Frith

Hi there—can you make sure you work on the very latest version of an article? I'd made quite a few additions and corrections to the Chapel-en-le-Frith article since your edits earlier this afternoon (some of them to the new material you'd added) but your latest edit has overwritten all my changes, so I'm going to have to do them all again. Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I hope you'll agree to at the very least compromise on any reductionist changes to Chapel-en-le-Frith given I've changed the subject in line with other places to be about the civil parish as well as the town proper. Otherwise your desire to consolidate would have remained about the small hamlets, which either/or may one day achieve their own civil parishes. I'm very much grateful for the comments on Eccles Pike and have paid recognition to your point. On a constructive note, a summary of topographical features would be welcome for the parish as a whole, without duplicating too much the functions of a good map, or details of other articles, and I'd be grateful for any interesting walks/peaks in the parish which should be listed. Adam37 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam - thanks for your reply (here and on my talk page). Maybe I was a bit hasty removing certain paragraphs from the Chapel article that I felt could have been added elsewhere, but that wasn't my main point. My main beef was that I had made lots of other changes, most of them uncontroversial grammatical changes, improvements to references and the like, that have been overwritten by your recent edits. I think you must have been working offline on an old version of the article, which you have pasted back in, thus losing any changes made by me since your last edit. Anyway, no matter; I'll leave it for a bit so you can finish your updates, and then go through the article again repeating my changes where I think they're uncontroversial. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again—I think I understand your position. As a local, I have to say that I wouldn't consider Dove Holes and Combs to be mere "hamlets" of Chapel-en-le-Frith—they're sizeable villages, physically and culturally separate from Chapel, and there's plenty more could be said about both (the former has its own railway station and major quarries, and the latter gives its name to a reservoir and the significant moorland area of Combs Moss, for example). That said, you're probably right that the Chapel article should cover the whole parish, and I'll admit that (although I'm usually a stickler for policy) I hadn't read the relevant section of WP:UKCITIES before, so I can see where you're coming from. I guess the best solution might be to add subsections for each daughter settlement to the Chapel article, with a brief summary and {{main}} links to the main articles for each. But that's for another day; I'll tread cautiously for now. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Chew Baker

Thanks for your edits to Chew Magna. I was wondering if you had a source or more information about the manor of "Chew Baker", as I'm not familiar with it and can't find any sources which mention it. If it is a play on Chewbacca then it's funny but dowsn't really belong on wikipedia.— Rod ^talk 19:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you have failed to click on the source in the citation, which I could have placed in a more logical order for you. That is a slightly odd accusation, knee-jerk for sure and does not assume any form of GOODFAITH. Referring to the County History it is the only manor referred to:

The church is a massive and spacious edifice with a nave and aisles, 106 feet in length by 60 in breadth, and having a tower at the west end 103 feet high. In the eastern corner of the south aisle is a handsome monument of the Baker family, who formerly had large possessions in the parish, and from whom the manor of Chew-Baker has its name; and inserted in a window of the aisle, is a wooden effigy, supposed to be of Hautville: in the eastern corner of the north aisle are monuments to the Strachy family.

Being local perhaps you could find where that used to be, and decide whether to include its final reference "To the north of the village is a well called Bully well, the water of which is said to be efficacious for diseases of the eye." The only reason I haven't included that is for risk of being made a fool, particularly if this was no more than a short-lived feature/story. Do let me know if it still exists!Adam37 (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks & I apologise for my inappropriate comment. I've improved the ref format (BHO has an option at the top to format references for wikipedia) & dabed John Strachey to John Strachey (geologist). I will try to find out more re the manor name. The well is mentioned in this book and this web site. I've looked in a couple of local history books and not found any mention. If it is north of the village it must be on the slopes of Dundry Hill and probably flows into Winford Brook (a tributary of the River Chew but I haven't yet found anything else about it. There is an unnamed spring at ST580642 (N51:22:33 (51.375745), W2:36:14 (-2.604019)). I will ask around.— Rod ^talk 16:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I saw your merge of Blakeney Haven into the town's article. I'm not objecting to that, but I would be interested to see the actual policy on this. In the town article, the Blakeney Chapel FA is pointed to by a section hatnote, whereas the church FA has just a wikilink. Again, I have no preference on style, but it seems inconsistent to treat the two FAs differently. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions to Norfolk have rivalled my prodigious ones to Politics and Surrey, Jim. The problem of the smallest articles which have little about them which is strictly relevant and notable has been skirted around by Blakeney Chapel which digresses a great deal into the wildlife and geography of the Eye (spit of land). All the better perhaps, unless you happen to have a researcher with a purely wildlife/green spaces interest; I hope there is a redirect for Blakeney Eye... Those articles have, I admit, relentlessly gathered enough fascinating information to have reached a well-written FA standard. The WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements guidance is categoric that settlement articles should be as broad and succinct as possible. Thus wherever something belonging to a town or village has a notable history which could be summed up in a more succinct way than relevant books might, then subsume that into the main article. Particularly articles on fields, hamlets, neighbourhoods, housing estates, places of worship in general and junior schools. That is consensus on the matter. We should not have Mrs Y of Midsomer Norton writing about her Grade II* listed church in its own article, gathering reams of history and architecture on the matter to find her article accepted but then find Mr Z who has purchased The Manor (House) of Midsomer Norton finding his article having to be subsumed into the village. The policy is Grade II and Grade II* are not Grade I and so do not deserve their own articles "except if exceptionally, eg. internationally notable". Indeed you'll see under Landmarks such a policy even goes further (which I have not written and does not chime entirely with consensus). This is where such policies get undermined. Anyway back to Blakeney, be bold, insert please the section heading article links (not really hatnotes), insert a landmarks section, put the used buildings under it and where fully-fledged and non-puffed up articles exist on a topic. Template:Main is often better than Template:See also as it is for articles distinct enough to warrant being separate, but not enough to be very separate subjects. As places within a civil parish are technically part of the main article main is seen more commonly. Above all the format of the UK guidance is helpful and I'll update some statistics which I have a liking for. Thanks - Adam37 Talk 12:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bouquet. The chapel is a bit of an anomaly really. Most of my Norfolk articles are nature reserves, some of which are of international importance as such (Blakeney Point, Cley Marshes and Titchwell Marsh. I wrote the church article as a result of reading an article on medieval church graffiti in Cornerstone (my daughter is a stonemason and conservator), and one of my obscure sources had two articles about the chapel.

I have to say that I thought of the chapel as more of a history topic, in that there's little there now and it will soon be completely gone. No particular logic to that since the church has hundreds of years of history, and my nature reserves tend to start in the Ice Age (:

I'm quite happy to leave the policies on towns etc to the experts, I'm well aware that I'm a birder who's trampling roughshod through the villages of North Norfolk. I almost feel I should upgrade Trimley St Mary as atonement for this (although I did park nicely and didn't get arrested!).

Best wishes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Message

I'm not entirely sure if your snide tone is necessary. I have removed ALL mentions of specific constituency change proposals because it's no longer relevant to include them. They are not going to happen, so they shouldn't be mentioned. It's nothing to do with specific parties or excess seats; I'm aware that Wikipedia shouldn't have space wasted on abandoned or aborted proposals. The article on the Sixth Periodic Review is quite enough - listing scores of seats that will never exist seems wasteful and silly. doktorb _words^deeds 17:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Adam37. You have new messages at Talk:Norman, Oklahoma/GA1.
Message added 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Bruce

Thanks for your kind words and positive review for GA status for Stanley Bruce - it's gratifying after all the work I've put in. Does this mean you'll be passing the article as GA? Or does some period of time need to expire for others to comment as well? Thanks Unus Multorum (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam37, thanks for the barnstar, but I'm afraid it is undeserved, I had nothing to do with the Bruce article. Feel free to remove it from my talkpage. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/GA1

I believe I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Bruce GA

Hi. Regarding your recent GA review here - don't take this the wrong way, but did you copyedit the article at all? In the half-hour since I first looked at it, I've found multiple WP:ENGVAR violations (not even consistent in which variation it used!), misused apostrophes in plurals, capitalisation errors in headings (!), and just the general things that would normally be picked up in a GA review, and I'm not even a third of the way through the article. I notice you said you're relatively new to GA reviews, and the review itself is quite good from what I can see (there's no doubt it was very close to GA, and you were certainly right to pass it), but a copyedit is one of the most helpful things a GA reviewer can do: a fresh pair of eyes on the article (which has usually been predominantly the work of a single editor) is invaluable, and it saves a lot of bother at FA. Even just a basic copyedit is always a really good idea. (I also have some POV concerns about the article, but they're probably outside the purview of the GA criteria.) I hope this helps with future GA reviews; please keep doing them, as the backlog is dreadful. :) Frickeg (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No you're right I was setting my ambition high toward clearing the backlog, a more detailed analysis is necessary of not merely the meaning and hermeneutics which are satisfactory, but of also the punctuation (and possibly grammar). Indeed the version of English is something I will have to watch out for, which normally in shorter articles remains consistent. I will happily correct the points you make. Rather than plough through the backlog like "St Peter on steroids", I'll try instead to employ my considerable powers of copyediting to good use. - Adam37 Talk 07:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this gracious response! Would that more editors responded to this sort of thing in this way, quite frankly. :) Frickeg (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Adam37. You have new messages at Talk:Norman, Oklahoma/GA1.
Message added 19:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dcheagle • talk • contribs 19:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Slow (song)

Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your recent edits on the article Slow! That replacement of the word "civilian" was helpful, in fact I myself admit that it did seem "holier-than-thou" before, but I couldn't think of something else at that time. Do you think the article qualifies for GA? I was concerned after your edits. Thank you very much again!! :) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC) (I am typing this from my mobile so there can be many typos etc.)

Mayor of London's Sky Ride (Cut and paste move)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Mayor of London's Sky Ride a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. - X201 (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything I had moved was far smaller and had far more sources so hardly worth my work in doing as you suggest. Please be aware sources are the governing rule of wikipedia, anything unsourced and with potential to be challenged entitles any other editors to remove it. Interally devised law does not apply to wikipedia as suggested so your wording was excessive, particularly as regards attribution which is a matter of courtesy, which I well now understand. - Adam37 Talk 17:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also I see someone has already imported the history so many thanks anyway. - Adam37 Talk 18:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

IofG

Can you supply a reference to that helpful edit-- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Populated places in Thurrock on the Thames

I have reverted one of your category removals pending fuller explanation. There is nothing on Farringdon talk page. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I never said there was, I said if you would read it more carefully, in the categories, as someone has deleted numerous Oxford villages on the same ground. Please specify which, I am no vandal so will not simply restore something we cannot develop coherent policy on. - Adam37 Talk 19:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

At the moment all the places in the Essex category are actually in Thurrock (not just the current unitary authority, but also the preceding borough). Has the deletion of Thurrock category been discussed anywhere? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is incoherent. I am sure you have heard of standardisation of categories! Plus I've been meaning to add Canvey Island.- Adam37 Talk 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What is incoherent - the category, the discussion, my contribution? Actually, I haven't heard of standardisation of categories. Can you point me to some discussion? A category - populated places on the River Thames in Thurrock makes sense from where I'm sitting. There is a perfectly reasonable catgeory populated places in Essex on the River Thames. A similar category related to Thurrock would be a sub-category. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are not incoherent. I would respectfully disagree about a sub-category. Most contributors brow-beat others into line when you try and make up your own categories. I have little against Thurrock I just would not, given London's example, depart from that, and List of Populated Places in Windsor and Maidenhead sub-lists are too short if you were to create such sub-lists and do not reflect groups of equal size. Just if you are considerably fortunate to live in those places (UAs) to only have one layer of local government should not mean you get special lists, look at the list for London for example. This is not a science and more of an art. Hundreds is considered generally too long for categories and one (e.g. Castle Point) suggests it is too short. Counties are just right. I am sure that is how the London list came about. I very much appreciate your work in respect of Thurrock as I would not have known which places to add for sure were it not for your knowledge.

I would just like to bring something else to the table, if the categories are there to inform us about topics which are particularly badly known, such as the places in Essex, or the places by the River Thames, receiving little or no media coverage nationally, and very little lately in leisure coverage and guides, then the sorts of lists best in precision will feature something that has at least one well-known item. Essex as a whole does, Thurrock never does. Even ITN/Sky/BBC never put on the national news in Thurrock, anymore so than in Tameside, Bracknell Forest or the London Borough of Waltham Forest. Arguably that's not as they are totally dumbed down. I have nothing against a Thurrock category as a whole, which exists though as it is bound to have plenty of culturally and geographically interesting places. Please also review the existing subcategories, on Henley and Abingdon as I am not sure they should exist.- Adam37 Talk 20:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: all lists have been peer-reviewed and so has my grammar. - Adam37 Talk 10:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Bruce FA Nomination

Hi Adam37,

A couple of months ago you were good enough to review and promote by article on Stanley Bruce to GA status. Well its now been through a fair bit of peer review to try and get to FA status, and it is almost there but its nomination to FA status just needs a few more supporting votes to get it over the line. If you wanted to have a look over it and add your support, or criticism if it needs more work, that would be really helpful!

P.S. I have to say I'm a bit offended you gave barnstars to three other very early contributors to that article, but not me, who actually wrote and did the research for over 85% of the current article that was award GA status by you. Not that I am on Wikipedia for awards, but I worked pretty darn hard over a few months to do extensive research and write that article, and now shepherd it through a lot of review processes; and its not so nice for to see others be given recognition for what was mostly my own work.

Cheers, Unus Multorum (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I missed the blatantly obvious later additions and am therefore sorry. - Adam37 Talk 18:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shepperton

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shepperton you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pyrotec -- Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

The article Shepperton you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Shepperton for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pyrotec -- Pyrotec (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Coulsdon

Just wanted to thank you for that splendid update you made to the Coulsdon page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewstimothy (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hello.

You recently made a number of edits to F.E. Smith's page. I have taken issue with almost every edit you made. I found that you damaged the writing either by addition or subtraction; muddied the waters with superfluous information or diluted the waters by removing good information. One of the things I love about Wikipedia is the inclusivity of everyone being able to make edits and to make their own contributions, but I'm sure you know as well as I how infuriating it can be when someone makes worse an article about someone you have invested a great deal of personal attention and love over the years. FE Smith is my personal hero and someone who I have dedicated a large part of my life to. I am asking you, if possible, to refrain from making any further edits to his page. This is not a territorial gesture; I am not trying to start a war. I merely think there are others better placed to manage his page, both for the good of familiars and strangers to his memory. I hope you take this in good heart.

Yours

MNIGNC

With respect

Your edits were nearly all decidedly for the worst. Your writing is horrendous. Just re-read this little gem:

'The article is however problematic for its lack of notability in the lead - he was very notable as Lord Chancellor which should be put in lay terms as archaic post'...

'The article is however problematic for its lack of notability in the lead'! Christ! You tout yourself as a guardian of lay-people-speak but you write totally unintelligibly. You would do well to not confuse accessible, clear speech with writing a lot while remaining, even becoming more unintelligible to lay-people. You are in the latter camp.

What you have to understand is that this is not some perverse, inverted 1984 where every even slightly non-household term is fleshed out to its absolute maximum, which is what you tried to do with Lord Chancellor. The whole point of having hyperlinks on terms like that is so that if people don't understand something they can find more about it on its designated page. If your approach was adopted by other Wikipedia editors the servers wouldn't last an hour. I will continue to edit F.E. Smith's page for as long as I see that it can be improved and will not buckle to your petty threats.

As for my quatrain, it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, as you might understand if you had the slightest whiff of literary nous.

Yours,

MNIGNC — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Portsea

You seem to have left matters in a bit of a muddle after your work on Portsea. I came across Portsea while stub-sorting, and have labelled it as a disambiguation page and tidied it up, also making a redirect from Portsea, Portsmouth to the section. But there are a large number of incoming links which previously led to an article at the title "Portsea" and now lead to the disambiguation page. It is your responsibility to sort these out - you have broken those links. Please fix them now, or revert to the previous situation where they led to an appropriate article. I'll put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire to draw other eyes to the issue. PamD 23:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay. I have been rather busy. - Adam37 Talk 19:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the award. Unfortunately I haven't been able to give much time to Wikipedia recently, but hopefully I'll get some time nearer Christmas. Also, thanks for improving Surrey settlement articles, keep up the good work! -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy Assassination

Please stop changing the article to make it sound like Tague was standing on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. He was not, of course, and I'm sure you know that, but the wording you are using makes it sound like he was. He was near the triple underpass and was slightly BELOW Kennedy, not above. Tsm1128 (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

assume good faith as no I wasn't aware. I wasn't aware there was an underpass. Why the focus on the window, perhaps what is meant is perpendicular with that window? I apologise. - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Sorry you weren't aware of that. Tague could not have been on the sixth floor of the Depository since that's where Oswald was and surely he would have seen him. Tague was near the bridge (triple underpass) that was in FRONT of the motorcade, while Oswald was on the sixth floor of the building BEHIND Kennedy. While I did not write that section of the article, I assume that the person who did write it mentioned the window to show how far away Tague was from Oswald when he was hit by either a bullet fragment or ricocheting concrete piece. Tsm1128 (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Decline in Deer Parks because of shipbuilding.

I have removed the comment and reference about the decline in deer parks being a result of shipbuilding. I can't find a supporting quotation in Sylva. Do you have a page number? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh good point, it was the source in general. The English used does not imply causation, the ridiculous old expression I used 'much to the rise of' means the latter profited from not was caused by the forerunner activity. - Adam37 Talk 20:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Church of St Nicholas, Charlwood

"Unsigned, inappropriate, trite." Re. the signed edit from the person who created the page solely as a contribution to Wiki's coverage of Burges. You sure know how to win friends and influence people. KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the work on Burges you have done is great, he is inherently notable and plenty has been written about him. - Adam37 Talk 21:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated. Forgive my churlish response. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgiven; forgive me also, I was pre-emptively censoring in case some architectural renegade with a grenade in his hand decides to knock any of your work on the head as a little too one-man specific. Which makes you a specialist, which can only be a good thing. - Adam37 Talk 21:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Really glad you like the Burges stuff. I read somewhere that St John the Baptist, Outwood, was in a poor state of repair and was struggling for restoration funds. I see you live in Surrey. Do you know if the position is any better now? KJP1 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know sadly.- Adam37 Talk 22:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTOC

Hi, please don't add __NOTOC__ to an article unless you provide some other means of showing a table of contents, see Help:Section#Replacing the default TOC. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It has an exemption for very small number of non-substantive sections (e.g. 3) I hardly overstepped the policy by much. - Adam37 Talk 20:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Isleworth has sixteen sections, plus seventeen subsections in addition, making a total of 33 entries in the TOC. West Byfleet has twelve sections. Mortlake and Tatsfield have eleven, plus four and six subsections respectively. Esher railway station, Hanworth and Westcott, Surrey have nine (the first two having one and seven subsections respectively). If you don't like to see a TOC in articles, you can suppress the display of them using the following CSS:

div#toc {
  display: none;
}

This would be placed in Special:MyPage/common.css. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Or one can simply click 'hide' as even I will confess they are sometimes of use. Where there are six sections of no more than 2 paras each (and three of these are See also, External Links ands References or similar) (regardless of how many 'subsections or sub-sublists/sections') there is usually consensus they be auto suppressed, or at the very least auto-hidden. TOCs are a bit wasteful on the web where it all fits in about one screen, low zoom. - Adam37 Talk 09:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and you can have a virtual token of apology, in that I was probably neatening and got carried away and neatened a little too much.- Adam37 Talk 10:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Kevington

Thanks for your recent tweaks to some of the Onslows. Given the number of incoming links, I'm inclined to think a separate article on Kevington Hall is justifiable, but as I haven't any experience with British architecture articles (and their proper sourcing), I leave it to you to decide. Choess (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sort of. Grade II* is borderline. Also, as it is a school building that was originally a grandiose (ie not just agricultural) manor house (one of c. 100 around the country) I suspect one article will be sufficient, especially as the names are rightfully about the same. On a separate point, given the dual use I see no reason not to cover it under a Amenities section in St Mary Cray. An internal link could be added there in Landmarks as well. That might be ample coverage. What do you think?- Adam37 Talk 21:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "an article" rather than "a separate article"; it doesn't seem to be discussed except in your parenthesis at Denzil Onslow (of Stoughton). I think an article separate from St Mary Cray would be better; the focus could be the structure and its architecture, but with some background on the history of the manor (cf. here), which might overburden the St Mary Cray article. (The moreso as it's no longer being used as a school.) Choess (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Geographical name changes GAN

Hello Adam37,

Remember the GA nomination for Geographical name changes in Turkey? Well it was almost done but I forgot what happened and I just couldn't finish it off. I just wanted to tell you that I renominated it again and I would love it if you're willing to do a re-review. It's not going to take much really. The main issue (the lead) is now fixed and appropriate to GA standards. Let me know. Thanks! P.S. By the way it's Proudbolsahye...I recently changed my username to EtienneDolet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The essence was good but the connotations, occasionally divisive terminology and conjugations would offend all but the most lax GA assessors I have come across. I am appalled by a few of the GA crew who rejected one of my own nominations, not just failing but demoted two grades and having to toil to even get it to WP:B class. It was not on a controversial subject. So I really am not going to stick my neck out sadly on this article.- Adam37 Talk 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Aw man and we were so close to getting it passed. All it needed was a better lead. Thanks anyways. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For all the terrific work you've done expanding articles, such as Putney Bridge, you deserve a beer. All the very best, Pjposullivan (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

St Johns Woking

Thank you for the edits on St Johns Woking:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/St_John's,_Woking

The name of the village varies on signs and street names but local historians, older people, deeds to property, and usage in The London gazette:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/52173/page/9

agree that it is written without apostrophe. This is also backed up by the peerage title of Baroness Anelay of St Johns, whose name is taken from that of the village and is written without apostrophe.

The village name, then, in the absence of convincing evidence otherwise, should I think be written without apostrophe as "St Johns". Since I know you are interested and experienced in grammar and place name spellings I'd be glad for you to consider this and make the changes if agreed?

Chris bore (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

True. See apostrophes in place names: orthographic reform links to it. I am keen to give clearer meaning to things, so St John's? But your point about a few centuries of English unclarity is almost convincing. However the telling factor is it could suggest two St John's churches in the village which is not true. All of your sources are not as officious or official as say, offices and councils of the public sector, which for better or worse, have great sway in orthography in Britain. In the last 5 years words have been broken up which never used to be and apostrophes added to many other place names. In the words of that nun on Sister Act 2, go with God, Crispy!?- Adam37 Talk 18:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Surrey cleanup listing

A trial run is available at Surrey. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That will help people participating most frequently in WP:SURREY. Thank you. - Adam37 Talk 14:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Watford Gap

Hi Adam. With this change you added a ref/note which doesn't actually make grammatical sense (the bit about the A5); would you mind taking a quick look and seeing what you meant? I've had a go, but i don't quite know what you wanted to say. Thanks, Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Corrected now :-) The notability which another editor saw may be for its tourist credentials - the A5 is rich in history. By sad contrast the M1 has in places become a sad scar on the landscape (mentioned on talk to explain all the books on it for fear of upsetting the burgeoning motorway lobby as opposed to say alternatives such as a COMPETITIVE railway building alternative).- Adam37 Talk 20:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Medieval parishes

Category:Medieval parishes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hornsey, and whilst

Hi there.

1. I've left a clarification request at Hornsey. I like what you've done but I don't think it quite works yet. Hope this helps.
2. Where is "whilst" deprecated, please? I'm not greatly in favour of changing it and would love to read why we should! :)

Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments and I am glad to see a non-vagueness and opinion editor in what is the tricky domain of London's pattern of old established 'districts'. I'm adding plenty of the original maps and broader history of this area.

1. I have now clarified what was meant about "larger than", it may well be the whole place will just become it's station doorstep properties, the way it is has shrunk. Let's hope more wards are named after it in future as it's obviously neutral and down-to-earth. - Adam37 Talk 16:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Please see How_to_write_about_settlements as to while or whilst so both are deprecated and I remember now I've used while wrongly once before. It's the same with although which I have come to agree is unencyclopedic text: contrast based on personal opinion.

Thank you very much for that. I think Hornsey is much clearer now. That sentence is maybe getting a wee bit long now but I'm not going to go and fiddle with it ... it might be fine, and no-one will benefit from me getting hung up about it! As for "whilst", thanks ... and gosh! I'm going to have to try to absorb all that a bit. I'll get back to you if stuck but for the moment, best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cranleigh

The category Historic parishes in Surrey, which you added to the Cranleigh article, does not appear to exist, as it's a red link. (It sounds like a good idea, though.) JH (talk page) 16:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Historic parishes in England

Category:Historic parishes in England, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Craven Transport

That's a great addition you made to the Craven page, about it being free from motorways: Craven#Transport

However I did mention there - the route called A56-M65 - - but thank god the A56 valiantly struggled over into in Lancs before it got gobbled up. Do you think you could mention that the M65 comes the closest to Craven? I cant think how to phrase it, any ideas?

I've always been hoping people would add to my epic work but you're the first. Congratulations, Thanks Kildwyke talk page 05:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC).

You're very welcome: it so happened to top one of the four large land use categories that ONS uses. I would say the National Park status clearly agrees that it's nice the Dales resisted the idea of another trans-pennine expressway - it resists the connotation from that Pennines Passes map in the Craven article that the area is the only decent point at which to get from the North East to the North West. As to travel links, any decent map tells you all of Yorkshire, Cumbria, the Midlands indeed virtually all of England has rapid transport connections and a motorway within a few miles (albeit via odd roads and layouts), I would just point you towards wikipedia is not a travel guide, which means all of these connections should not be made the prominent subject of every District/Place on wikipedia, don't there go into too much fine print on roads/railways especially as these have their own articles. Other editors frequently make reference to that as it is quite right to avoid the encyclopaedia becoming the worst form of National Rail (ATOC[artels]) or Top Gear Travel Guide.- Adam37 Talk 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Clapham

Hi. Could you revisit the section in this article about Clapham South, please? Something's not reading quite right in it, and I'm not quite sure what it was that you were wanting to say when you amended it in the autumn. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Complete. Thank you for your thank you afterwards. - Adam37 Talk 15:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Musgrave Baronets

Hi, just to explain my removal of your edits. Basically the Musgrave Baronets of Kempton are not descendents of the Musgrave Baronets of Hartley Castle. That Baronetcy started in 1611. The Musgrave Baronets of Kempton Park are from an offshoot of the family prior to then, back in the early 1500s. They go back through the Musgraves of Eden Hall and Harde Castle. Although this in itself does go back to Hartley Castle it is when they had the Lordship of Hartley and were the Sheriffs of Westmorland. if however you want to follow the family back to its origins you will end up around 1030c with Gamel of Musgrave (a Feudal Lord), the father of Wasculinus, who was either of German or Norman descent.

Thank you for the full overview, which is always hard to discover and prove outside of Westminster/Royal records as it is all so long ago. I understand the break in male lineage to a cousin. However the title itself underwent a period when it became of Kempton Park. Why is this not mentioned in the prose? Eden Hall did similarly become it seems the second or first home of the family for a few generations, before it was demolished in the early 20th century and is not mentioned, though has never been part of a title as far as I can see. Edenhall suggests it was rebuilt from a crumbling structure in grand 19th century stone or bricks following the baronetcy coming into the cadet branch of the family. It seems the higher numerical Musgraves Baronets therefore took on the mantle of leading Cumberland dignitaries from their 1-4th baronet Musgrave cousins. That seems categorical unless numbers have gone missing somewhere.- Adam37 Talk 09:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Back again, unfortunately my mains power went off before I could finish the above. Here are some family lineage dates:- Philip Musgrave 6th Baronet (b circa 1711 Edenhall - 5 July 1795 Kempton Park). Son of:- Sir Christopher Musgrave MP 5th Baronet Musgrave of Eden Hall (25 December 1688 - 3 January 1736. Son of:- Sir Christopher Musgrave MP (21 March 1661 - 2 July 1689). Son of:- Sir Christopher Musgrave MP (1631c - 29 July 1704) 4th Baronet of Musgrave Eden Hall. Son of:- Sir Philip Musgrave (21 May 1607 - - 7 February 1678) 2nd Baronet Musgrave of Eden Hall. Son of:- Sir Richard Musgrave (1585c - 1615, in Naples, Italy) 1st Baronet Musgrave of Eden Hall. Son of:- Christopher Musgrave (1553c - 15 October 1585, at Eden Hall). Son of:- Sir Simon Musgrave MP Kt (1510c - 30 January 1597, in Kirby Stephen), of Harde Castle. Son of:- Sir Edward Musgrave of Edenhall (1461 - 23 May 1542). I could go on further back, but that is pointless. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite sadly that is suggesting the article is neglecting to cover Eden Hall as well. They are the same five baronets as the Musgrave baronets of Hartley Castle as their birth and death dates are identical. So why is there no mention of Eden Hall in Langwathby or Kempton Park in Sunbury-on-Thames in that article. If the information by various earlier editors on the article page is correct you have actually proven that the Musgrave Baronets of Kempton Park are immediate descendents and main heirs of the Musgrave Baronets of Hartley Castle! - Adam37 Talk 10:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a lot of it is down to interpretation of documents, in that being a titular holder of the 'Baronet of Musgrave', whilst actually being resident of Edenhall or Kempton Park, has over time brought about a belief that there is actually a Baronetage of Eden Hall and Kempton Park. Unfortunately to get into the research required to prove there is actually such a Baronetage may encroach on [WP:OR|OR]. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Shillington, Bedfordshire

Hi, I just saw that in 2013 you made this edit, which, talking about the church, says "It has been referred to as the 'cathedral of the Chilterns', on an outcrop hill, seemingly the most easterly of the Chiltern Hills however geologically linked to the ." This still stands in the article - do you know what it is geologically linked to? –anemoneprojectors– 15:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. I was reading an article on the sands and sandstones of nearby but that does not form a separate ridge here lining 'Vale of the Great Ouse' also known as the 'Vale of Bedford' unlike at Woburn Sands.- Adam37 Talk 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Corollary

Hi. Is "corollary" a kind of Term Of Art in railways or =something? I'd honestly never seen it before in this context. I am admittedly very much NOT an expert in rail matters but I was just a bit surprised to see a term that was "new" to me in some of the articles I watch. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's used in roads, railways and everywhere. It is an accurate description where a line fitting its description is operated by the same operator but is not generally used as a loop. In historic times most corollaries were described as alternate routes but we are living in an age where to describe something as an alternate route is both quaint and does not do justice to the stations along that route (which often as not would be much longer by one alternate). The northern line is a perfect example where to describe its Charing Cross and Bank branches as branches standalone (note I dislike the term per se) would be a totally misleading misnomer. They are fundamental alternatives that reunite. I believe the use of the word branch in this context goes back to an age where they actually were just branches, not alternative routes, and indeed there are many examples of geography in wikipedia such as Richmond, London that truthfully portray the current status of a place, rather than what perhaps an absolute majority of those with power in the place would have you mistakenly believe (such as Richmond, Surrey!). In essence we are here to cut through jargon and misnomers in an encyclopedia (making mention of them by all means) and not to perpetuate them! Adam37 Talk 19:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, they say that you learn something every day, and I just did. Thank you very much for the thoughtful and intriguing reply. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome.

Speen, Berkshire

Good afternoon,

I have question in relation to your amendments to the entry for Speen, Berkshire on 12 December 2014. In respect of the sub-section concerning Speen House, you inserted the following reference: "Early historians have dated a few stones among the foundations to the Roman village of 'Spinae', but it is more likely that these oldest stones were sourced and hewn for the late medieval manor house, nothing else of which survives." You have cited the house's listing entry in support of this statement.

The listing entry does not refer to the matters quoted above and I therefore suspect your information comes from another source; I would be very grateful if you could tell me what that source is. I know Speen House well and I strongly suspect the statement is correct, but it would be great to see some documentary support.

Many thanks.

165.225.80.125 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It is possible the list entry has changed so as to be verifiable. Alternatively I have missed the source as Page's contribution to the quite comprehensive Victoria County History project makes no mention of this either. These would probably be my only sources but have a look for nearby listed sites, such as ramparts on the map search function of Historic England - I sometimes combine all those supporting structure articles into one overview which would be best practice if they did the same! - Adam37 Talk 20:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Former is a good word

Maybe, but if you are going to put "former" on every disused facility on every diagram in Wikipedia this will need discussion And if you think it will help the sight impaired that is what you are going to have to do.. Britmax (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

How very retrogressive and illiberal. And who are you and others like you to dictate that should be so? Is there no intuition in the railways fraternity or merely an unhealthy focus on the past with regard to present important infrastructure, so as to conflate past with present barring a very small colour change that might not even be rendered on some screens. Were the diagrams in which this comes to light prose then there would be strong calls to clarify what is history and what is today's operations and so the same should be true in diagrams! One has to 'move with the times' and 'go with God', or at least the present. Let us not lose sight of what is meaningful and what is merely resonance.- Adam37 Talk 20:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There might be an argument for using better separated colours than the current pink used for disused and the red for active. I wonder where you would raise this for consensus? One of my aims is to see that you don't do a lot of work that attracts opposition and is reversed. Give that some thought. Britmax (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Good work speaks for itself. Bold strikingly obvious editing is part of wikipedia and any good guide to a system. If there are redundant, pedantic or more to the point esoteric stations listed in a diagram then quite frankly it is misleading and whimsical to emphasise them in almost precisely the same way as others. That is never seen elsewhere and is a sad indictment of attitudes towards the railways quite frankly. I cannot speak for consensus but surely must we have some intuition that it might be popular (and a winning argument, without much discourse) to distinguish frankly and with all due weight about what is former and what is not '(closed)' and other logical synonyms (and moreover expand function/footnotes) are seen in other diagrams abroad. I don't think the present is controversial.- Adam37 Talk 20:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Windsor fast and slow lines

These are simply the operational names for certain lines that run out of Waterloo. Google them and see. Britmax (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Accepted in this instance. Change is often too slow to come in the railways but if it stands any chance of competing with roads then those sort of misnomers will need to be sorted by Network Rail or ministers, the greedy little companies again perpetuating myths.- Adam37 Talk 10:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

Please read the above and consider its implications. Britmax (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well indeed, that is precisely what the operators are doing. That will all come out in due course. Consensus has already moved on clearly by virtue of sheer numbers using the line from not the Windsor Branch and whilst you have published sources by old waxworks running the system citing the old name at that point in London some tiresomely obvious independent study could easily override that. Never mind, have it in a cosseted way.- Adam37 Talk 11:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to using a name for these lines, as this is only an operational description used by railway enthusiasts and as a reference for maintenance by Railtrack. Did you find the reference that has Railtrack use it as recently as 2009? You could probably hold a season ticket as a passenger for your whole career and not hear the lines described in this way. If that is what the lines are called that is what we use, and if you are trying to change that this is not the place to do it. Britmax (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The term "Windsor lines" is in current use by SWT (http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/May-timetable.aspx). --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Shepperton Branch Line

You are right about the terminus but the other station (Kempton Park) has had the same service as the others on the branch since June 2006 according to the SWT wayback quoted in the station's article. Britmax (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have any of the early morning or late evening trains as the operators recognise there is demand to get to London etc quickly from the line without calling at a station 1/4 of a mile away from another on the line and a line which is already much slower than those around it having no semi-fast service. You are talking about the part of the day when most hard-working people are already at work.- Adam37 Talk 10:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. You are of course talking about Crossrail 2. The actual operations are open for consultation, but as a diagramatic representation which is used elsewhere for many stations sometimes run through as part of a semi-fast or fast service as on the east part of the North Downs Line, I accept the thrust of your edit. Your time could more usefully be employed also actually making some new colouring for semi-fast services and fast services at various stations rather than debating on whether a partly part-time station really ought to be considered a nice neat red dot. You seem to be a very good influencer, and have more knowledge of the railways.- Adam37 Talk 10:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge in August which includes Gloucestershire. A chance to win £250 as well! If contests aren't your thing we welcome independent contributors too. If interested sign up at participants. Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Town or village?

Can you help here? Swanscombe is called "a small town", but it categorised as "Villages in Kent". What do you think it is, officially? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully that is consensus like in wikipedia and democracy! However in 1981 Swanscombe Parish Council was upgraded to Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council, and that stamp of change means the answer is town. In England local government and central government will not use the word town unless they are sure the central character is urban, as it upsets all those with green gardens/allotments and a sense of know-everyone villagey-ness which is at the heart of England. In every town therefore you will find pleasant parts where people say they feel like and even live in a village, even in London and in Birmingham for example, less so in the most industrial cities but on their outskirts that is true too!- Adam37 Talk 23:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Charlwood Clarification

The entire sentence doesn't make sense. It's nothing to do with the moat.CalzGuy (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Surrey

I am available to be asked regarding advice on WikiProject banner templates, as I have much experience in this area. Regarding this revert: it doesn't work, that's the point - your edits have brought in several problems by removing some essential parameters, and altering other parameter values in such a way that portions of the template no longer behave as they should - for example, the categorisation by importance is compromised. The sandbox is at Template:WikiProject Surrey/sandbox, please use that for making experimental changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss, after hours of not quite fruitful study of Template:WPBannerMeta I cannot get that minor imperfection ironed out. To embellish it too much I believe I was going by a bad route from the outset of trying to use parts of the Military History bespoke template. Please could someone just enable the template I have prepared and I will set about one-by-one assessing and re-assessing the articles labouriously which is my intention. I do not like to be compromised by just an issue of auto-categorisation (by importance).- Adam37 Talk 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If I added a second HOOK which is unnecessary then just remove it, and any other fields, even task forces which I see under WP:TASKFORCES might re-invigorate the project and inform people which part of the county someone is from or something is really to do with. The first HOOK is a major step forward as provides for rigorous B-class assessment by everyone.- Adam37 Talk 19:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that we start with the Template:WikiProject Surrey/sandbox, which I have set up to be identical to the main template as it was yesterday. We can add one new feature at a time to the sandbox, and make sure each is correct before the next is added to the sandbox. In the meantime, I suggest that we restore the live template to yesterday's version - remember that every time it is altered, no matter how small the change, every page transcluding it (there are 1580 of these) gets placed in the job queue for re-parsing.

Once all of the changes to the sandbox version are finished, we can than copy that live.

It would help a lot if I knew what you were trying to achieve. I'm clear on one thing: that you want to add five taskforces, one each for: the Runnymede, Spelthorne and Elmbridge task force; the Mole Valley & Epsom & Ewell task force; the Surrey Heath & Woking task force; the Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge task force; and the Guildford and Waverley task force. We can add these like this.

So, what else is needed? For example, do you wish each taskforce to have its own importance rating, independent of the general WikiProject Surrey importance rating?

What else do you want to add? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing else. I don't see the need to add anything else, thank you for fixing the coding, very much.- Adam37Talk 17:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Members of Parliament lists

I have noticed that you have introduced a new style of presentation of the list contained in Barking (UK Parliament constituency). I think if this sort of change is going to be acceptable to the list in this article then it should occur across all UK Parliament constituency articles, both current and historic. If this is your intention, it may be worth you opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom‎. Should your new style of presentation be deemed by others as an improvement, you will still have much work ahead of you. I don't think you will get many other editors keen to make this change to all the other articles.Graemp (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Graemp: I don't think the new format is an improvement, and have raised the subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#MP_lists_in_constituency_articles_-_format_change. Adam37, please don't reformat any other MP lists until there has been a discussion. I would have reverted as part of "Bold, Revert, Discuss", but it was complicated because you'd done other changes in the same edit (no problem with that, I tend to do the same thing). Thanks. PamD 09:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I see now that you've reformatted many lists already, but please now stop until there is discussion. Thanks. PamD 09:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't introduced a new style, I saw it in Battersea first and considered it roundly, objectively a great improvement. We can discuss until the cows come home and I don't necessarily discount that it becomes deprecated, but it adds visual clues against representatives who have lasted just one short Parliament versus those that have been re-elected a few times! I look at the US system for the sake of comparison and see their elections actually have reliable ranges of polls on whether an election is a "toss up", "weak" "strong" "very weak" for a particular district etc etc. and whilst I am not seeking to emulate that degree of finesse (which is much harder to justify with a more nuanced range of parties in the UK) it would be sensible to at least give some visual statistics rather than bandying about 'safe' and 'marginal' overall judgments in so many of "our" articles. Many so-called safe seats have only been in one party's hands a decade. Others just happen to have lacked demographic change and teeter on slim, marginal majorities that news editors love to call "safe" only to create a double-whammy therefore of headlines for weeks to come!- Adam37 Talk 20:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You are right that the style is not new. It is a style I have noticed is used in many Canadian Riding articles. However, it is new to the UK articles, apart from Battersea. I think it is better to have a consistency in presentation and would not welcome seeing some of these lists being changed to the Battersea style on an ad hoc basis.Graemp (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I was about to implement boldly the perceived improvement throughout. Do I have no taste?- Adam37 Talk 21:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The techniques used - i.e.

{| border=1 cellpadding=5 cellspacing=0
|- bgcolor="CCCCCC"

use HTML 4.01 attributes which are marked obsolete in HTML5. Is there any reason that you can't use

{| class=wikitable
|-

instead? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice that and would not normally code like that purely for wasting bytes. Whoever edited Battersea and made it look more logical and respectful of politicians' respective tenures (or lack thereof) clearly should have understood that first, but understood here anyway now.- Adam37 Talk 22:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I see the article had two periods (2010 to 2017) (and Spring 2017) when the section showed the re-elections (if any) in the list of MPs returned by date. None of this I added, I merely deigned to defend it and some editor thought I might have added it:-

Article: Battersea (UK Parliament constituency) Section: Members of Parliament

Let's see what has happened to the extra column and rows that came in, work of User:Bkissin, in 2010. I duly removed all this per the discussion of January 2017 in my talk. These detailed out how many re-elections the winner saw. I did so as did not have time to make the case so conceded it for the time being and wondered what the eventual outcome might be. There was briefly a partial come-back and it was for a few weeks, passing other notable editors, successful:

On 21 April 2017‎ User:82.5.106.137 introduced a lovely, abbrievated, non-dated coding technique style of more rows clarifying number of elections won. It was rejected: 7 June 2017 by‎ User:DavyCrockettJones. He hadn't discussed this. But nor had User:82.5.106.137. The later (the revert to the current, pared down, the UK-wide format) wrote "use same format as other articles". The same argument is made by two contributors above. So who made the original invention? It was by User:Bkissin on the 10th May 2010 and looked like this. I was struck by the beauty of Bkissin's style, yet I think it a bit grand – we don't assign numbers to parliaments in even broadsheets here unless being very quaint. I prefer even more what User:82.5.106.137 did. Though I appreciate the general, perhaps retentive abhorrence of different formats in politics studies though personally am a great fan of latitude and even format diversity. People with intellect should be able to assign different weights based on years and numbers. They don't. We have a 'soundbite' culture and lack of intense maths-english analysis done on first reading (these days) all of which means many people would benefit from a starker User:82.5.106.137 style breakdown of the service of MPs.

The question is simple. Does adding a line showing the re-election(s) give due weight to the MP, which would be a shame to do without (some countries do this, some don't on their wikipedias). The counter-argument is that it somehow makes MPs who have achieved re-election somehow seem more important, even if a heavy table line is used only if the MP changes name.

I will move this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom‎ as the first comment says.- Adam37 Talk 10:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener

Hello. I have changed your figure of 736 deaths (including Lord Kitchener) when HMS Hampshire was sunk back to 650. This is simply because the lower figure is the traditionally accepted one, most recently recorded in the 2016 Faught biography cited in the Kitchener article. However your note suggests that there may have been recent research changing this. Could I suggest that, if this is so, you could provide the source references and amend the 650 figure (which appears twice in the article). Regards. Buistr (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)]

• Hi. Thinking more on my edit where it refers to four sources, I would have been astounded if I were wrong but I have checked and realised many studies were undertaken in the centenary year, 2016. This abbreviated list numbers 737: the first ten characters of the 737 killed aboard:-
• ABURROW, J

 ADAMS, Ha  ADAMS, Wa  ADAMS, Wa  ALEXANDER  ALLEN, Er  ALLEN, Fr  ALLEN, Wi  ALLUM, Ge  AMEY, Nel  AMEY, Wil  AMOS, Jos  AMY, Will  ATTWOOD,  ATTWOOD,  AUSTIN, A  AYLING, C  AYTON, Ge  BAGLEY, J  BAILEY, C  BAILEY, G  BAILEY, H  BAILEY, J  BAINES, S  BAKER, Fr  BAKER, Pe  BALLARD,  BANCROFT,  BANWELL,  BARBEARY,  BARGEN, T  BARNARD,  BARNETT,  BARROW, N  BARTLETT,  BARTLETT,  BARTLETT,  BARTLETT,  BATES, Ar  BATES, Be  BATES, Ge  BAULK, Ar  BAYNES, G  BEAN, Fre  BEAR, Joh  BEARMAN,  BECK, Geo  BEECHY, J  BEESTON,  BELCHAMBE  BELL, Wil  BENNETT,  BENNETT,  BENTLEY,  BEVERLEY,  BEX, Will  BILLINGHA  BILLINS,  BIRTLES,  BISHOP, G  BLACK, Ro  BLACKSHAW  BLAKE, Ed  BLANDFORD  BLOOR, Th  BOBBETT,  BOND, Geo  BONNICK,  BORAMAN,  BORNE, Ja  BOSWORTH,  BOWEN, Ge  BRAGG, Ja  BRAIN, Wi  BRIDGES,  BRINDLEY,  BRISCOE,  BROAD, Wi  BROCKWAY,  BROWN, Ro  BROWN, Wi  BROWNING,  BUCKENHAM  BUCKINGHA  BUNTING,  BURDEN, E  BURFOOT,  BURREN, G  BURROWS,  BURTON, J  BURY, Fre  BUSBY, Wa  BUTLER, F  BUTLER, G  BUTLER, R  BYNG, Jam  CADBY, Wi  CADMAN, C  CAKE, Wil  CAMERON,  CANNON, J  CARD, Wil  CARTER, C  CARTER, T  CARVIN, C  CHAMBERS,  CHAPLIN,  CHARLTON,  CHEATER,  CHESWORTH  CHILD, Al  CHITTY, A  CLARK, Wi  CLAY, Fra  CLAYTON,  CLEARY, F  COLBECK,  COLE, Fra  COLLECOTT  COLLETT,  COLLIER,  COLLINS,  COLLIS, W  COMPTON,  CONNOLLEY  CONSTABLE  COOGAN, J  COOK, Fre  COOKE, Ho  COOMBS, J  COOPER, G  COOPER, W  COPE, Her  COSSEY, A  COULTHARD  COVEY, Je  COWLEY, G  COX, Henr  COX, Jame  COX, John  COYLE, Jo  CROMPTON,  CROSS, An  CRUSE, Pe  CULLINGTO  CUMMING,  CUNNINGHA  CUNNINGHA  DABBS, He  DAGWELL,  DALLAS, W  DANIELS,  DARBY, Wi  DASENT, M  DAVEY, Er  DAVIS, Ar  DAWSON, A  DAWSON, J  DE STE CR  DEAN, Fra  DENHAM, H  DENNIS, H  DEVESON,  DEVLIN, J  DIAMOND,  DIAPER, H  DODD, Wil  DOHERTY,  DOHERTY,  DOMINEY,  DONNELLY,  DOOLEY, S  DOVE, Geo  DOWLAND,  DOWNES, J  DOWSON, J  DRUMMOND,  DUFF, Pet  DUFFIN, A  DUNCAN, A  DUNN, Les  DURRANT,  DYER, Geo  EADES, Ja  EAST, Ern  ECCLESTON  EDWARDS,  ELLISON,  ELMER, Ge  ELSON, Re  EPPS, Joh  EVANS, Ge  EVANS, Jo  EVANS, Pe  EVANS, Ro  EVANS, Wi  EVERETT,  EWING, Wa  EYRE, Jam  FALLOWFIE  FARINDON,  FARTHING,  FEAR, Edm  FELLOWES,  FELLOWS,  FERRETT,  FERRETT,  FERRIMAN,  FIELD, Ge  FIELDING,  FINCKEN,  FISKEN, P  FITCH, Jo  FITZGERAL  FLACK, Fr  FLANAGAN,  FLAVIN, M  FLEMING,  FLEMING,  FLEXMAN,  FONEY, Fr  FORREST,  FORREST,  FOSTER, E  FOSTER, J  FOTHERGIL  FOWLER, A  FRASER, C  FREEMAN,  FREEMAN,  GALE, Her  GALE, Wil  GANDER, J  GARDNER,  GARRETT,  GARRETT,  GARSDEN,  GEARNS, J  GEORGE, E  GERRARD,  GIBBS, Wi  GIBSON, W  GILDERSLE  GILES, Ha  GISBORN,  GLOVER, F  GLOVER, G  GOBLE, Al  GOMM, Cha  GOODFELLO  GORDON, J  GRACE, Wi  GRANT, Sa  GREEN, Ge  GREEN, Jo  GREEN, Jo  GREENAN,  GREENHILL  GREENWOOD  GREY, Eri  GRINYER,  GROOMBRID  GROVES, T  GROVES, W  HACKEN, R  HAGAN, Jo  HAGAN, Jo  HAINES, A  HAINSWORT  HAMLIN, C  HANSELL,  HARDEN, C  HARDING,  HARGREAVE  HARMAN, D  HARPER, A  HARRIS, L  HARRIS, S  HARRISON,  HARRISON,  HARRISON,  HART, Cli  HART, Geo  HARVEY, J  HARWOOD,  HAWKINS,  HAWKINS,  HAWKINS,  HAYES, Ha  HAYLER, J  HAZEL, Sy  HAZEON, C  HEAD, Geo  HEATH, Ma  HEDGES, E  HEGGS, Jo  HENEAGE,  HENNESSAY  HENRY, Th  HENWOOD,  HESELWOOD  HEWITT, F  HICK, Har  HIGGINS,  HILL, Edw  HILL, Geo  HILL, Joh  HILL, Rob  HILL, Tho  HILLS, He  HIRTZEL,  HISCOCK,  HOBBS, Fr  HOBSON, M  HOCKLESS,  HODGKINSO  HOLBROOK,  HOLDEN, J  HOLL, Geo  HOLLAMBY,  HOLLEY, J  HOLLIS, S  HOLLOWAY,  HOLTOM, H  HOOK, Fre  HOOKER, B  HOOKHAM,  HOPE, Cha  HORROCKS,  HOUGHTON,  HOWDEN, W  HOWE, Her  HUDSON, S  HUGHES, R  HUMPHREY,  HUNT, Fra  HUNTER, E  HUNTER, E  HUNTER, F  HUNTER, G  INNOLES,  IRESON, W  ISHERWOOD  IVES, Joh  JAMES, Gi  JAMIESON,  JARVIS, B  JARVIS, J  JEFFRIES,  JELLEY, T  JENNINGS,  JENNINGS,  JENOURE,  JEWITT, L  JOELS, Er  JOHNSTON,  JOHNSTON,  JOHNSTONE  JONES, Co  JONES, Ev  JONES, Ha  JONES, Jo  JONES, Jo  JONES, Th  JONES, Wi  JORDAN, A  KANAAR, J  KEBBLE, A  KEEPING,  KENDALL,  KENNEDY,  KENNY, Th  KENWARD,  KIMBER, W  KIRBY, Ja  KIRBY, Wi  KIRKUP, F  KNIGHT, G  KNIGHT, H  KNIGHT, J  KNOWLSON,  LACEY, Re  LACY, Art  LAITY, Jo  LAMB, Jos  LAMPARD,  LAMPITT,  LARKING,  LARKINS,  LATTER, W  LATTIMORE  LAWLER, W  LAWLER, W  LAWRENCE,  LEACH, Th  LEADER, L  LEDGER, A  LEDWOOD,  LEE, Will  LESLIE, F  LEWIS, Ja  LEWIS, Jo  LILLEY, A  LIND, Cha  LIPSCOMBE  LITTLE, R  LITTLEWOO  LOCKER, G  LOVEGROVE  LOWE, Jam  LOWE, Tom  LOWE, Wil  LOWERY, H  LYFIELD,  LYNCH, Jo  LYNN, Alb  MACGREGOR  MALLARD,  MALLET, C  MALLETT,  MANSER, F  MARINER,  MARNER, G  MARSHALL,  MARSHALL,  MARSHALL,  MARTIN, C  MARTIN, G  MARTIN, R  MASKELL,  MASTERS,  MATTHEWS,  MAXTED, H  MAYHEW, E  MCADAM, W  MCCALL, D  MCDONNELL  MCFARLANE  MCGARRIGL  MCGARVIE,  MCGOWAN,  MCGRATH,  MCINTYRE,  MCLAUGHLI  MCLOUGHLI  MCNALLY,  MCNEILL,  MCPHERSON  MEDHURST,  MELHUISH,  MERRITT,  MERWOOD,  MEW, Jose  MIDDLETON  MITCHNER,  MOORE, Ge  MOORE, Ri  MORETON,  MORLEY, A  MORPHEW,  MORRIS, E  MORRIS, F  MORRIS, F  MORTIEAU,  MORTON, A  MORTON, C  MOULD, Al  MUDIE, Do  MULLEN, D  MULLINS,  MULVEY, P  MUNTON, A  MUSSON, T  NAYLOR, A  NEELD, Al  NEWBEGIN,  NEWMAN, J  NINEHAM,  NOEL, Har  NORRINGTO  NORRIS, A  NORTH, Ar  NORTH, Ge  NORTHOVER  NOVICE, J  NOWLAND,  NUGENT, M  NYE, Char  O'CONNELL  OLIVER, F  OLIVER, J  ORMONDE,  OUBRIDGE,  OULTON, W  OWEN, Nor  PAGE, Joh  PAMPLIN,  PARKER, G  PARKER, J  PARKHURST  PARKS, Wi  PARSONS,  PARSONS,  PARSONS,  PASHLEY,  PATON, Da  PATTENDEN  PAYNE, Ar  PAYNE, Ha  PAYNE, Ha  PEARCE, A  PELLETT,  PENGILLY,  PERRY, Du  PERRY, Pe  PESSELL,  PETERS, W  PETTETT,  PETTETT,  PHILLIPS,  PIPER, Fr  POLLARD,  PONSFORD,  PORTER, A  POTTER, F  POWELL, J  POWELL, W  PRAGNELL,  PRAGNELL,  PURNELL,  QUINTON,  RAGLESS,  RAMSEY, P  RANDELL,  RAWLINS,  REDFERN,  REED, Geo  REED, Wil  REES, Wil  REEVE, Ge  REYNOLDS,  REYNOLDS,  REYNOLDS,  RICHARDS,  RIGBY, Ja  RILEY, Er  RIORDAN,  ROBERTS,  ROBERTSON  ROBERTSON  ROBEY, Wi  ROBINSON,  ROBINSON,  ROGERS, E  ROGERS, W  ROGERS, W  ROSE, Reg  ROSSITER,  ROWELL, W  ROWLEY, J  RUSSELL,  RYAN, Ste  RYAN, Wil  RYLES, Ma  SALISBURY  SALOWAY,  SANDOM, G  SAUNDERS,  SAVILL, H  SCRIVEN,  SEE, Char  SEMPLE, R  SEXTON, R  SEYMOUR,  SHAILL, T  SHANKS, J  SHANKS, J  SHARP, Wa  SHARPLES,  SHAW, Jam  SHEARMAN,  SHEPHERD,  SHEPHERD,  SHERWIN,  SHEURER,  SHIELDS,  SHORT, Wi  SIDEBOTHA  SILK, Ern  SILLS, Er  SIRDIFIEL  SKINNER,  SKYNNER,  SMEDLEY,  SMITH, Al  SMITH, Al  SMITH, Al  SMITH, Be  SMITH, Er  SMITH, Ge  SMITH, Ge  SMITH, Ge  SMITH, He  SMITH, Wa  SMITH, Wi  SNELL, Sa  SNOW, Vin  SNOWDEN,  SOWDEN, W  SPARKES,  SPARROW,  SPEDDING,  SPENCER,  SPIERS, O  SQUIRE, W  STABLES,  STAFFORD,  STALLARD,  STANLEY,  STARMORE,  STEAD, Ed  STEELE, C  STEPHENS,  STEVENSON  STEWART,  STEWART,  STRINGER,  STRINGER,  STRINGER,  STRINGER,  SUCKLEY,  SUTTON, A  SWEETZER,  TAILBY, G  TAPPER, S  TAYLOR, E  TAYLOR, H  TAYLOR, J  TERRY, Pe  THOMPSON,  THOMPSON,  THORNTON,  THWAITES,  TIDEY, St  TILBURY,  TILLING,  TINGLEY,  TIPPING,  TIZARD, P  TOONE, Sa  TREFFRY,  TRODD, Ha  TROTT, Jo  TRUE, Edm  TUCK, Cha  TUCKER, C  TUNNICLIF  TURNER, E  TURNER, F  TURNER, F  TWOMEY, L  VARNDELL,  VEALE, Mi  VERLANDER  VERNON, H  VINCE, St  VIVIAN, R  WAGSTAFF,  WAIGHT, F  WALDEN, E  WALKER, A  WALKER, A  WALLER, W  WALTERS,  WATERMAN,  WATERMAN,  WATERS, H  WATTHEW,  WATTS, Ar  WATTS, Ch  WAUGH, Ja  WEBB, Joh  WELSBY, W  WENHAM, W  WEST, Cha  WHEELER,  WHEELER,  WHEELER,  WHELAN, H  WHITE, Be  WHITE, Er  WHITE, Fr  WHITE, Fr  WHITE, Ge  WHITE, Jo  WHITE, Wi  WHITLOCK,  WHITNEY,  WHITWORTH  WICKENS,  WICKER, R  WIGFALL,  WIGG, Wil  WILDEN, G  WILKINSON  WILLIAMS,  WILLIAMS,  WILLIAMS,  WILLIAMS,  WILLIAMS,  WILLIAMS,  WILLS, Wi  WILSON, A  WILSON, B  WILSON, W  WITHINGTO  WOOD, Fre  WOOD, Jam  WOOD, Wil  WOODGER,  WYMER, Fr  YEATES, C  YOUNG, Ja KITCHENER DONALDSON ROBERTSON, O'BEIRNE   McLOUGHLIN RIX,  Mr. SURGUY-SHI GURNEY,  W FITZGERALD ELLERSHAW McPHERSON UNNAMED CivilianClerk UNNAMED CivilianClerk UNNAMED Servant(personal) Sorry to be demonstrative, but this source http://www.naval-history.net/xDKCas1916-06Jun.htm does not seem biased and gives this list. I invite you update the author of a book citing the much lower figure which is "“A magnificent historiography, bridging the gulf between local and national history.” Dr Ray Fereday

“Succeeds in its goal admirably, deserves a place on any bookshelf.” Sigurd Towrie

“An in-depth study, highly recommended.” Cdr. John Bingeman

“A darned good read.” Professor Tom Stevenson

• One must consider the forensic credentials of the author(s). There is strong possible inter-relation of these sources and "historiographical" elements in the book which I have not read - it is £25, (and whether the methods used are sound or not). I agree the four sources in HMS Hampshire article tally and it would seem from critics the book HMS Hampshire: a Century of Myths and Mysteries Unravelled, ISBN 9780953594573, Irvine, Budge and Callist (2016) is OK. The stone memorial itself commemorates a further 9 men who died on HM Drifter Laurel Crown clearing mines on 17 days later that June. As matters are set in stone now at 737 plus 9 on the other vessel I would be loathe to criticise personally, I wouldn't want to upset any of the families considering if that were my relative on that stone. If they died on other vessels then which?- Adam37 Talk 19:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for producing the evidence to correct this point - I certainly did not expect a record of the full list of fatalities (except the two unnamed clerks and Kitchener's personal servant) to be available! The higher figure is clearly the correct one and hopefully the one that will appear in future accounts of the sinking of HMS Hampshire. Regards. Buistr (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thames Islands

I like your work on the islandsMotmit (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

More work done.- Adam37 Talk 16:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your changes to Orbit of the Moon

Hi, you recently changed the text "approximately 2.3 billion years from now, the increase of the Sun's radiation will have caused Earth's oceans to evaporate" by adding "unless shielded by artificial intervention".

Your comment justifying this change was: "Clearly a shield could be constructed over hundred of years (or robotically or whatever) to block this added solar radiation mentioned. Abject doom-saying...".

This change and comment appear to be uncited and unsubstantiated conjecture on your part. The [edit justifications] 'abject' and 'doom-saying' appear to be a subjective view, which brings no benefit to the article. Accordingly, I have revoked this change. I am happy to discuss any future changes you may propose on the Orbit of the Moon talk page, to reach consensus and agreement before any similar changes are made. Thank you. ToaneeM (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It is uncited; and would be logical to take place to save the planet from frying over millions (or billions of years) if Earth's life's progress continues. I admit and apologise the edit is way ahead of where we need to be right now!- Adam37 Talk 14:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We can definitely debate the logic of predictions and good ideas til the cows come home, we just can't put them in an encyclopedia. Thanks for your reply anyway :-) For the record, I don't know how we'd build a structure or apply a technology large enough to protect two-thirds of the world from heat over 100 C, caused by a fireball 1/3rd of a million times bigger than it. It'd be a far less effort to go to another planet or something else involving legging it. So I can't see how it's even good theory or logical... At any rate, thanks for your time and for talking. ToaneeM (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit to "Sidereal time"

I have reverted this edit to "Sidereal time". One meaning of "vernal equinox" is a ray from the center of the earth along the line at which the ecliptic plane intersects the equatorial plane, toward the First point of Aries (as opposed to the other ray, the autumnal equinox, which goes toward the First Point of Libra). This ray of course can be used as one side of an angle, and is so used in determining sidereal time. The direction of the ray has nothing to do with the direction of the sun at any particular moment. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. The ecliptic plain is a product (ie machination) of the position of the Sun.- Adam37 Talk 15:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The role of the sun is indirect; the sun and earth together define the plane of the earth's orbit about the sun. The instantaneous position of the sun is not directly involved in determining sidereal time. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you are providing a qualification to the sun's involvement as a back-formation. The position of the sun relative to the other stars at the March equinox determines the concept, nothing else. Furthermore the equinox is a moment in time and should not be conflated with a vector which is sought by sophists.- Adam37 Talk 15:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017 gives this definition in its Glossary for "equinox":

1. Either of the two points on the celestial sphere at which the ecliptic intersects the celestial equator. 2. The time at which the Sun passes through either of these intersection points; i.e., when the apparent ecliptic longitude of the Sun is 0° or 180°. 3. The vernal equinox.

I reject your application of the term "sophists" to the US Naval Observatory and the UK Hydrographic Office. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

In this edit you altered a quotation from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), making it appear NIST is incompetent by attributing them your false explanation. If you make any further edits to this article without citation to a reliable source that directly supports the change I will pursue dispute resolution.

In as much as the definition of a sidereal year is separate from the definition of sidereal time, your edit summary is off topic.Jc3s5h (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The definition as it stands remains wrong, perhaps I should not have added the word revolutions as well as rotations as I see that was a short quote, sorry about that. However I was a little surprised in my reading to discover the sidereal year and hence sideral time is actually only measurable by reference to the position of the sun at the equinox and not a deemed position relative a distant star. There is no fixed Point of Aries, it moves. You may however prefer a semantic difference of emphasis in that you are among that class of astronomers who prefer to imagine an orbit of the sun purely relative to the fixed stars behind however it is at its very basis a case of the earth having to complete an orbit of the sun and when one takes the start and end of that orbit. The without which nothing (sine qua non) of the whole concept of years, hours, minutes, seconds is just when you take the start and end of that orbit to be.- Adam37 Talk 17:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The sidereal year is defined as the time for the Earth to make one revolution about the Sun (or vice versa, as you prefer), relative to the fixed stars, not with respect to the vernal equinox.

If we measure sidereal days and sidereal years in atomic seconds, we see that variations in sidereal days due to variations in the rotational rate of the Earth has no effect whatever on the length of the sidereal year. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. And as an aside I wasn't implying the last sentence. We could just say the origin of the sidereal year is where the earth returns to a previous point of reference among the background stars, in a relatively local standard of rest or the sun's rest frame (I am not sure which). The one thing it isn't is when the equinox recurs.- Adam37 Talk 18:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the concept of "fixed stars" is currently realized by Long-baseline interferometry on quasars located in distant galaxies. Due to the great distance, any motion of these distant sources is undetectable.

Information about the sidereal year belongs in the article "sidereal year" and has very little relationship to the article "sidereal time".

Simple English

You claim on your user page to be a grammar nut, and you claim to advocate for simple english. Your user page, however, is full of incomprehensible subordinate clauses and over-elaborate constructions.

Well, I don't care about your user page. I care about this paragraph, that you added to the article Assured tenancy: "This counter-intuitive term, dwelling house, applies to exclude only businesses and highly indistinct subdivisions of houses or flats such as where shared and no particular set of joint tenants can be said to be entitled to the whole; flats and single rooms are included within the definition of a separate dwelling house as are converted barns, windmills etc."

1. 'counter-intuitive' is subjective, and being part of an Act of Parliament, is clearly a term of art.

2. 'applies to exclude' - what does this mean?

3. 'highly indistinct': could it be that you mean simply 'indistinct'? I don't think there are degrees of indistinctness.

4. 'such as where shared' up to the semi-colon: I cannot parse this clause at all.

I don't have access to the source material you cited, so I can't use that to work out what you meant; can you please rephrase this paragraph so that a reasonably competent reader of english can understand it (it's important, because it discusses important legal rights and obligations). MrDemeanour (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

In turn:

1. Most terms are left undefined such as this term in other Acts. In Acts before the 1990s there was a general trend towards vagueness and judicial latitiude which remains in later Acts governing controversial inherently "blurry" scenarios. The courts say they have their "natural meaning", which gives leeway. If you wish to example the wording of the Act, please do. Sometimes the breakdown of the term is more confusing and vague than attempting the backstop provision of giving it its ordinary meaning!
2. This is as plain as crystal.
3. Agreed. To correct this any editor can be bold (please do change it)
4. I think the word missing is "certain" or the words missing are "certain variously interpreted".- Adam37 Talk 14:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have had a go. These are complex arrangements. You are right - it needed it.- Adam37 Talk 14:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Sidereal time"

I'm trying to improve the "Sidereal time" article and would appreciate it if you could look at my progress so far, at User:Jc3s5h/sandbox. I've removed some sections from the existing article and replaced them with the top-level section "Modern definition" and some sub-headings. If you have any comments, they would be welcome in the talk page of the sandbox. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems good, cannot think of any more suggestions than in the talk page.- Adam37 Talk 16:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of "junk"

Hi Adam37. Thank you for your recent addition to Junk (ship) with this edit. I'm not able to see into the Pierre-Yves Manguin reference to confirm that he talks about the commonality of words, like jonque, among European languages. If he doesn't discuss this, then it would be appropriate to supply another reference or to undo the assertion, correct as it probably is. I'll look for your thoughts, here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense I have just read the French article as well and it refers to the Italian and various others and explains why in the lusitanisme article it explains nautical language was the lingua franca of the high seas for hundreds of years. On the contrary, I put you to find a major European language which does not have the Portguese-based word. Perhaps move the citation if you think this not basic knowledge... In fact I'll do that to avoid such obvious pettiness. On that score the French article asserts boldly the word is from Malay and boldly rubbishes the idea it is from Chinese. I am sure you will agree at least we are even-handed and fair in the English article to date.- Adam37 Talk 13:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing the validity of the assertion, just requesting that it be supported by a reference. Thanks for providing that. Can you provide a readable link to the Manguin article? I can't seem to find it on the web. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm no longer a member of JSTOR. Perhaps ask someone who is at university still or a university academic who has access or visit a library that has that journal or access to it.- Adam37 Talk 14:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Chill

You need to calm down and take a deep breath. As regards your comment “has this article been proof-read?”, yes by Dr Blofeld at Talk:Leicester Square/GA1 and I think Sagaciousphil has looked over it too. However, we can’t guarantee to keep on top of every single drive by edit made to the article since. Also, punctuation marks are difficult to distinguish when viewed on a smartphone, in my view.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Possibly I do need to chill. Perhaps look to the substance (edits) instead of the form (edit summaries) as that is kinder and more helpful to the project. Facta non forma. As to keeping on top of everything I sympathise a lot, though your "keep on top of everything" is not particularly chilled/free-spirited is it really and could you do with some more chill/a pleasant dose of leniency yourself? Your revert was really uncalled for. Other languages are much less tolerant of people's utter ignorance (believe me having edited various other wikipedias) about language. People getting a pronunciation wrong, Leicester, however is not a seminal matter of culture, it is just a bit of trivia. That is our interpretation of that sort of issue in English-speaking cultures. I was in a good mind to just remove the whole section, but on balance I thought a little micro-obsession with pronunciation (a matter of detail not substance) I thought might be good for the sake of international balance between cultures.- Adam37 Talk 10:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What's interesting about the punctuation issue is it's been there for two years while the article passed GA, then passed a good topic review with unanimous consensus - yet nobody spotted it. I wonder why that is - it's a straight forward fix that could be done by anyone, possibly even a bot?

I seem to recall some kerfuffle with the American pronunciation issue when I was originally improving the article a few years back, and what reliable sources existed to back it up, but it's regularly wheeled out as an archetypical example of British names that are confusing for Americans to pronounce. I've witnessed it first-hand on several occasions, as well as Chiswick being pronounced "Chizz-wick" (I confess I struggled to keep a straight face with that one) and amazement / incredulity that Towcester was pronounced like the device you put bread in. Of course, the perfect comeback for Americans is, "Alright, how d'ya pronounce Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, smartass!" Vive la difference..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(watching) Since the bridge is in Louisisana, I'd expect anyone with a basic understanding of French to pronounce it absolutely correctly (which incidentally may / not include many US citizens!). A good example—a classic from the tourists at LST—is Cheshunt being "pronounced" Chestnut :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Mind you, Americans and the English both get totally flummoxed by Machynlleth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

..."where gangs of men terrorise the countryside with their close harmony singing" :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

...and reverting of good-faith edits is all part of a day's work here ([1], [2], [3], [4]) - if you get upset when it happens, you need to detach yourself from the situation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It is good to see you do not revert data people have corrected that is, as the sources around it attest, totally wrong. It appears some of your reverts border on the obsessive. Forgive me when I say this but an awful lot of bad prose is out there and just because a long spiel has been reviewed as Good Article does not mean its prose can still at times be ambiguous, misleading or opinion-laden in the style of an WP:EDITORIAL or WP:ESSAY in places. You appear to demonstrate that yourself in many of your reverts which are reverts of such unacceptable prose from any encyclopedia's point of view.- Adam37 Talk 08:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's just I think you have a habit of saying more when less will do. For example, you wrote "From St Giles Circus, where it meets .... "; that's an earful of a sentence that only gets to the finite verb about half way along. And you wrote "bisected it perpendicularly" - why not just say "crossed it"? The more concise you can get the facts across, the more likely the reader is to pick up on it.

I would recommend (indeed, I would recommend it to anybody) to look at User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing - it's a good set of exercises to try your hand at, particularly if you ever want to tackle Featured Article Candidates. Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment is a good read too. (Of course, you can probably pick examples where I've been over-verbose and say "aah-haaa - why don't you practice what you preach" but I certainly don't claim to be perfect and it doesn't really negate my argument).

As a further suggestion, why not look at Pingu#Production history - the writing is atrocious and it's been tagged as such for several months. I think you'd find your editing time to be more positive if you focused on prose already tagged for attention. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That really is the most self-serving of arguments; one person's technical language is another person's jargon. And one person's tagging is as good as another's with the same experience in complex articles. I am one of the most successful editors on here. Do you want to just stick to the Simple English edition of wikipedia. As to "where it meets" I copied the exact form of the existing prose, which has been good-article accepted, so why challenge it; it is actually less technical language than "at the junction with" which is longer. Your approach is that of a slapdash form-focussed Norman overlord who does not like plain Anglo-Saxon English nor technical language but prefers only text that is poetic and most pleasing to his ear. I would however agree that crossed perpendicularly is the same as and better than bisected perpendicularly (Perhaps I have been involved in too many physics related projects lately). "Crossed" alone as to streams/rivers could mean at any angle and having come from any angle beforehand - you will note the denotation that the adjective adds quite rightly means it doesnt even run anywhere near alongside the line of the street... Or did you consider that? But that is more easy to finesse than to revert and have someone have to put the useful image back in and leave the false data dreamt up by some ill-informed, poorly-read person - obviously not you. - Adam37 Talk 09:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said at the top, you need to chill out, take a deep breath, and realise you aren't as smart as you think you are. By the way, I see you claim to have taken Dorset to FA; no you didn't, I have worked with the editors who really did. Sorry, I can't work with liars - I'm out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

One article I did a lot on and yes I'm 15th ranked, but I thanked, liaised, reviewed others edits very sensitively and played my part, I've not "taken it" as you write. Stop spinning my own lines away from what they logically say, you may get dizzy. Everyone is entitled to a little bit less oppression and more thanks, including you. As I say at least you never write false old Victorian-sourced data, street rumour and historiography which I am too careful to avoid. The more we work to weed that sort of stuff out the better, and not perseverate about minute details. Agreed? Perhaps I should have put I am a regular Gnome, I don't have the ego problem of some editors on here in claiming they wrote half of a particular topic, which is usually false.- Adam37 Talk 19:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Your SFL edits

Adam, thanks for this. You improved it!

I took the liberty of making a few more changes at the top, including the commenting-out of one sentence and ref. that I thought was just too impenetrable for the summary section (I suspect you do too: "long-winded"). I hope what I've done meets your approval; please say if it doesn't. Tony (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edit adds further to its excellent coverage of a complex topic traversing all of linguistics. You are clearly well-versed in the subject, I wish I could say that I was too!- Adam37 Talk 13:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Easements in English law you included material from a webpage that is available under an Open Government Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution [as opposed to just citations, being clear as this is very esoteric] so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Government-published things are it transpires in practice risibly more complex in licensing than others, wikipedia it seems kowtowing to them saying they merit their own "special licensing template" footnote even though wikipedia is a purely summary, quasi-news, quasi-pithy extracts encyclopedia format. I am hardly quoting much. Even though the source itself disclaims liability stressing it disapplies (does not constitute) a statement of the law, i.e. a proper substitute for paid/professional legal advice or the most involved, complex works on the law. How very excessively up-front and overly highlighting they insist they be. Very Orwellian. Still best go along with them. I'll be a good chap rather than take their copyright legions to task. I have better things to do.- Adam37 Talk 08:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hornsey Boundaries

I see that you made wholesale changes to the Hornsey boundary section, rather denigrating the info given from the CENF. I've re-edited that as per WP:Source, focussing on the more reliable source that I gave. The survey was closely overseen by the Council and so had to be fairly conducted, taking into account views from both sides of the border. It's a much more reliable source that some bloke drawing lines on a personal Google map, but contrary to what you wrote, it's pretty much identical to the areas defined by the Google hobbyist and the parish map. To quote a very wise source, if you have any issues or wish to discuss something, then please do leave a new message. HughJLF (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I wasn't aware it had received the Borough's approval. As such I am inclined to agree with you.- Adam37 Talk 08:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve HD 34880

Hi, I'm Lithopsian. Adam37, thanks for creating HD 34880!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. There's a lot of hard data, especially in the starbox, not all of it supported by the given external links. Inline citations are really needed to show where specific claims like numbers come from.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Lithopsian (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It is just a translation. I know the Italians work to different standards on wikipedia. As Gaia data examination corrects much what has been published, I am sure what they have put and indeed I have no doubt has been fairly and accurately published, will be much better refined.- Adam37 Talk 14:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what Italian Wikipedia may or may not do, here any claims that cannot be supported by external references are liable to be removed at any time. Rather than just delete the whole article, it would be better to provide some references. Simply hoping that numbers you got somewhere else are OK and assuming somebody will go out and do your dirty work for you is not good enough, and weasel words about Gaia and ongoing research aren't good enough either. Wikipedia, Italian or otherwise, is not a reference. Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My point is one of comparative practice and equivalence. Surely make your argument on Italian wikipedia also. Or I'll do that "dirty work" for you. All information is good faith in such articles with links to SIMBAD and other more precise databases for more accurate, emerging data. If you don't take my creative point that the data is up in the air on many precisest points then again, make your argument (or I will) on such fellow wikipedia projects and stress for the sake of the risk of fake-news in this area (completely laughable) needs to be cited line-by-line, that seems a poor reading of WP:V as nigh-on all of it appears in SIMBAD which is linked to.- Adam37 Talk 14:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about HD 34137

Hello, Adam37,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether HD 34137 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 34137 .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Sutton and Cheam (UK Parliament constituency)

You recently edited the constituency's political history section. I was concerned that the analysis you provided, while fitting your edit summary of being "up to date and neutral", contained interpretations which were largely unsourced. Wikipedia is not an editorial column. It also did not give a complete account of the constituency's political history, and in some cases was misleading (e.g. Labour's vote share) and worded confusingly. I have edited most of the analysis and removed the parts of it which I thought were least relevant, but I would welcome you to add sources. MB190417 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added the extra statistic needed. I've tried to balance the very simplistic sensationalism of most seats that have changed hands against a complex picture, which as you have helped to write, is very much the case. You are absolutely right to do this. A lot of seats still read "the seat used to be a X Party safe seat but is now a Y safe seat" as though that is acceptable in an encyclopedia (when the very definition of "safe" is mainly in the PRESS an opinion as in truth must be rooted in both length of unbroken success ('a party's holding' if you like) and the size of the majorities. Mind you I have never said the American system of 'XY toss-up', 'leans X' 'strong leans X' 'slightly leans Y' is compatible with our often three-party/candidate system.- Adam37 Talk 16:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crooked Billet

Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

But in a larger sense, you were the impetus for this. All's well that ends well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Some editors withdraw their WP:AFD nominations when it becomes apparent that the article has changed. Suggest you reread WP:Dead horse. But you can ride it into the ground. Your call, I guess. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Subdue that Peacock

My key How to write about UK settlements task!

Avoid Peacock Terms

Subdue Peacock terms into more verifiable and encyclopedic statements. As concerns UK Places see WP:UKTOWNS and WP:UKVILLAGES weasel terms and unverifiable and unpublished peacock phrases often need to be rephrased or erased. Their publishers must be notified which typically involves identifying non-encyclopaedic terms such as "lively community", "beautiful", "great", "leading school", "thriving", "affluent", "within easy reach of" and "blighted by/ shabby/ run-down" unless strong scholarly (e.g. non-tourism focussed book) or governmental sources can be found to verify such content and it is worthy of a Global Encyclopedia article. Essentially many articles otherwise turn into a beauty contest. See my user page.

Public holidays

Your change to Public holidays in the United Kingdom is garbled. Why would Scotland want St Davids day as a holiday? And the sentence "The Scottish Parliament has passed a law ..." is meaningless. Could you fix it please? Cabayi (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC) If you see unclear then you are in a minority, fix it yourself as I being a decently kind person would. Also in regards to meaningless, obviously not. I'm not that bad.- Adam37 Talk 19:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverts on Culmination article (and some other ones)

I have just reverted your two edits on Culmination here[5]] because they make little sense or have relevance to the article. e.g. The reason: "The Sun: ambiguities removed. +20° is not on a given summer's day, but a specific NORTH HEMIS. SUMMER DAY!!!" Yet plainly the season or hemisphere is totally irrelvant to culmination time when it crosses the local meridian.

The other is by saying: "Article carefully considered: some mistruths debunked too boldly asserted in lead having read and had re-constructed all the other related articles. Distinctions made better." I think this has not properly thought through, as most of these changes are just wrong. In declaring "...and had re-constructed all the other related articles." is very promlematic and it fails NPOV to impose another. Doing so would, in this case, is not very constructive.

Notably too, these recent edits[6] or [7] or [8] (without cite or proof) or [9] (removing a reference to the text) or [10] : all have similar issues in this regard. None of these are particular helpful. Please consult CIR, as it is an editorial requirement.

Also recent additions made on Anglo-Indian here[11] are disturbing because of possible prejudice issues, especially as this text is neither formally cited nor properly sourced, It looks more like personal research. Just be very careful not to offend nor the text has verifiability issues.

It is assumed here under good faith this was not deliberate nor vandalism act, but I do implore you to justify and discuss these edits here Talk:Culmination#Revert of Incorrect Assumptions. If you have an doubt, then feel free to discuss them on talkpages or ask questions. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hardly fair in casting my recent edits as uncited; if you care to look at the diagrams and links in the very same article you will see they are all correct. As to 'removing a reference to a text' that is just not true.- Adam37 Talk 10:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What you mean to say is 'removing a finding in the further reference' which was as it actually is a false summary. The diagram lifted from the same source shows the period of Ross 248 as closest-star is about 9,000 years. That is put in, instead of the unduly wordy finding taken from the same author. Also Alpha not Proxima will be the closest for some of the time so the double inconsistency (or falsehood) has been identified. I'm not some sort of wayward chimpanzee.- Adam37 Talk 10:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Again. Competence says: "the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively." Much of your alleged improvements so far exampled are just incomprehensible. The continuing failure is in destroying context: shown in items [2],[3],[4]. You are responsible for your edits, and if challenged, the onus of proof is on the individual who adds the edit. (After reading your 'explanation' on Ross 248 above, you still haven't got the significant issues with context. e.g. Changing any truths into fictions.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Utterly wrong. In regards to whether 33,000 years to 42,000 years is 9,000 years, it is. And anyone bar an android with a hatred for English would admit my edit removed clutter words.- Adam37 Talk 08:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Cranley Gardens

Hi Adam37, I made significant changes to Cranley Gardens because disambiguation pages are navigation aides to existing content. Most of the articles listed had no mention of Cranley Gardens. Leschnei (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, forgotten policy. In regards to declaring it as may refer in the UK to these places the word is 'notable', the rest are just not notable from a global perspective so far as editors so far have written/researched about - they still exist.- Adam37 Talk 16:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Bethnal Green's pronunciation

Hullo, I have purely amateur interest, but I just wanted to query something you put. You talked about pronouncing the TH as an F, which I'm sure many if not most locals do, but you called it a "hard TH". What does that mean? I can foresee calling THs voiced or unvoiced, eg, wither and ether, but is that the same distinction as hard and soft? If so, Bethnal, surely unvoiced; so unvoiced=hard! Alternatively, they're two different distinctions.

I've never heard anyone say Bethnal and make a diphthong out of the 'e', that you write as 'ey'.

And in the estuary pronunciation, the 'and' should just be an 'm', not the 'ən' given, don't you think?

Regards Nick Barnett (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well Hi! 99.9% of people have a purely amateur interest, and in my experience, editors starting across with such a lovely bit of self-effacement tend to be those most keen to get their points through. I agree with you entirely, I was in whatever article you are speaking about - you'll need to state the article - just reconciling as best I could. I would go still further than you and say I have a passing interest only in pronunciation. Something must have grated on me to venture into that shady realm.- Adam37 Talk 19:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought more; and you might mean the seat in the Commons. I'm right. In fact I didn't write as you write, I put the only average way people would say it since when people have played with it and put daftly obscure fact of 'conservative RP' as if anyone needs to find a distinction in 'ei' as the french would write that sound from old RP to new RP, which is so subtle based on old films as to be non-existent for all but the most unusual parochial backwater speakers, who might with a look of puzzlement from listeners say 'ey/ay' as in "thaht's baytter'. I mean that's an obviously out of place distinction and must be for some political reason or complete detraction - are we doing Scots pronunciation of London places next? I'd say people use variations right through the three-main academically stated spectrum main sounds: eth, as in tether, thorn (letter) and f) looking at the place name and how some people deal with th in the middle of words differently. I have a very keen interst in IPA write-out of sounds mainly based on places in the world with counterintuitive pronunciations vs spellings, that is the section of this that led me into that. Truly I think it is the bow sound that people abroad might well guess wrong with, never the Bethnal!- Adam37 Talk 19:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Postcode area articles

Please do not go gung-ho into editing postcode area articles.

Some of the edits you have made to these articles come across as you wanting to suit yourself, which is a violation of WP:OWN. Also, your summary of "Copyedit (major)" for the edit you made to the ME area article was too short and not very descriptive.

Wikipedia may encourage its editors to be bold, but for each article there is an extent to which an editor can be bold. You went past the extent for the postcode area articles. In simpler terms, you were too bold.

If I were you, I would have first started the appropriate discussions on the articles' talk pages. I would have described the issues I had with the existing text, and how I wanted to change the text so as to sort out these issues. And I would have welcomed the opinions of other editors.

Please consider starting such discussions in the future, instead of going gung-ho into editing these articles.

Thank you. Roger 9 Roger (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked for 15 days now for serial sock-puppetry and it does not surprise me that simply wishing to put across how many there were of particular types of unit and in more succinct English, without alleging post towns are somehow formal Subdivisions of a sacrosanct numbering system, must have irked you and caused you to make so many obfuscatory reversions.- Adam37 Talk 09:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Bevin Buys

Hello, I'm concerned that your good-faith edits to the Bevin Boys page have resulted in a wordy and confusing sentence. Also, while you say your reason for making these edits was because the previous wording was '100% unverifiable', you haven't actually provided a reference to support the new claim either. Would you mind reviewing your edit and provide a supporting reference. Many thanks. Obscurasky (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I'll take pointers from someone who cannot even spell Bevin in a title. However I will find something from the copious realms of literature on British mining to satisfy your very 21st century skepticism of trite facts.- Adam37 Talk 14:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. There's nothing in my comment to indicate skepticism - I said your edit resulted in a sentence that was wordy and confusing (it's also grammatically incorrect). And it requires a supporting reference because of its significance, not because I'm disputing it. Obscurasky (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't quite get it, do you? You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. How would you fare on a highly academic context English comprehension test, I wonder. If the "crystal standard" of Plain English is what you're after then restrict yourself to Basic English wikipedia or start with a good look at countless articles on linguistics, physics or philosophy at grade C or above. There you'll find much more that will no doubt jar with your narrow filter of what makes good reading. Your demand for journalistic-worded articles is mirrored by the way in which you require everything minutely cited even with what is a fair but not laboured overview of content (per WP:LEDE).- Adam37 Talk 10:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. Thank you for providing a citation. I'm certainly not after a "crystal standard" of plain English, but the sentence as it stands is barely sensical. You're making an important point, so I'm sure you'll agree it needs to be written in a way that is understandable. Obscurasky (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eta2 Doradus has been accepted

Eta2 Doradus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Feltham, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

All of the Victoria County History collaborative historians work I put in before talked about gravel right next to the surface and how poor it makes the land for crops. Obviously it depended on crops, peas, trees and much of market gardening was not that bad. Even as a compromise just mention the gravel extraction the article mentions below perhaps instead. Basically the grass is parched in summer and stony soils dominate.- Adam37 Talk 17:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You can add whatever relevant content you want. You just can't add stuff you happen to know is true (over and over) without citing a reliable source. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Your recent editing history at R v Ingram, C., Ingram, D. and Whittock, T. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic, any further petty warring I would find an admin to actually impose sentence on you, or on me if they so choose. But let's not fall out when I am trying to make a coherent project of Category:English criminal case law, having some experience in this field and keen for it to match the other fields of law. Really it is not criminal, it is just plain petty to start reverting and restoring just for the sake of it. One wonders whether you have ultra-backward views and would rather we still lived in a feudal age. Mainly due to your seeming appreciation of padding throughout the article and your rigid desire to revert, revert, revert.- Adam37 Talk 14:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please take it to the article talk page rather than making comments like that here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please keep your forum preference to yourself.- Adam37 Talk 15:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

R v Adams

Hi, a couple of months ago you added the sentence The defendant was found not guilty (acquitted) at the retrial the year after his appeal. to the article on R v Adams, among other edits. I've removed it because it was unsourced and unsupported by the body of the article; I've also been reading quite extensively about the case and couldn't find any sources for it (indeed, the one source in the article states that he was again convicted at the retrial, which was upheld upon second appeal). But if he eventually was acquitted it seems an important fact to include in there, so I thought I'd leave you a message in case there was a source I'd missed. Thanks! YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 12:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.- Adam37 Talk 12:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Adam37

Regarding your changing of various category links on the Basingstoke Canal s well as other. There is, and was, no link on that page to any Category:Canals in Surrey so I don't understand what your reasoning is, perhaps you could enlighten me? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a technical point of wikipedia policy at WP:CAT regarding category pages. I abhorred it at first too. It is that you cannot put things in a sub-category or sub-subcategory into a parent category also, as they are already there, nested, in the subcategories at the top of the category page. In this case you need to see the category that fits with the word Surrey. See it's Canals in Surrey. It's a sub-cat of Tourist Attractions, and thanks to some housekeeping really stands out. Let's keep it that way. See it makes it easier to navigate to the sort of tourist attractions that interest the reader, and not a wapping great big list of attractions.- Adam37 Talk 16:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm with you now. Sorry, I got lead down a somewhat blind alley at first as the category Canals in Surrey hadn't been used at all with reference to tat page. To be picky that shouldn't be used either, or Canals in Hampshire, as Basingstoke Canal is a sub-category of both I've discovered. regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Technically right now. But I wouldn't place any money on that category with 2 items surviving, one is a different canal, the other a tunnel which could be divorced from the canal like every other tunnel does not feature in its parent canal category when there is one. This seems to explain why the article has so many categories still. Pretty messy but then water is.- Adam37 Talk 17:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

River Wey

I added the citation needed tag to the claim that the north branch is sometimes known as the west branch. There is really no need to be rude about it. If you make changes to articles you should be able to back them up with sources. Incidentally, I have done quite a lot of research on the Wey and this is the first time I have come across a such a description. The fact that you had to go back to a relatively obscure scientific paper in 1848 shows that it is not a common or current description. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Tons of Two sources come up in seconds. I have obviously read more on the subject than you. Sorry to use a harsh word but the north/south simplification cannot withstand serious minds.- Adam37 Talk 12:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the place to discuss things is the relevant talk pages, not the edit summaries. See: (I'll concede that Surrey certainly does not have a proper county town, though the innumerate "sudden antiquary" paper writers actually promoting housing beg to differ; however one must add some true highlight for context as it is not Gu-Weyb. that's all as strongly connoted.)

I'm not even sure what you mean by it, who are these innumerate "sudden antiquary" paper writers? Do you mean innumerable? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Both, they're hopeless on striking a balance between history/modernity and appear to be multiplying.- Adam37 Talk 14:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Also how dare you put sole mention of a source I top from the took rankings on google, of 1848! The 1930 source book source that pops up (being readable as out of copyright) is equally good. The later mapmakers with no helpful use of cardinal compass points, a binary understanding of direction, and indeed from reading this article no knowledge that the west branch probably flowed to the north, thus from its WSW origin, are to be deprecated insofar as it is possible without their ignorance prevailing. And it is theirs not yours.- Adam37 Talk 12:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The second source quoted does not appear to be readable on-line and searching on key words doesn't bring up a suitable reference, hence me restricting my comments to a source I could actually access. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rather than take offence it's better to take the philosophy of "honi soit qui mal y pense" and "benefit of the doubt", as I am something of a source when it comes to water. I do appreciate you probably rank alongside me in terms of extreme Surrey knowledge though.- Adam37 Talk 14:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I took offence on your being rude about inserting maintenance tags. As for being knowledgable, having re-read the 1848 cite (NB, please give page numbers) it doesn't say what you think it does. For a start the author might be veru knowledgable about geology, I am not in a position to comment, but his geography is distinctly shakey. He seems to think the confluence of the two branches of the river join above Shalford, hence his use of the term westen for the Alton branch as it flows east past Godalming. The Ordnance Survey, and the Environment Agency regard it as the northern branch. And I still don't know what your edit summary comment means. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

NB I gather the use of
to separate items in infoboxes is deprecated. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh OK. Edit summary Gu.-Weyb. means the river doesn't go, at the same pace as previous places: Guildford straight to Weybridge, there is a fair bit of land e.g. as the basin (I have some doubts about) implies, in between. Otherwise we have almost undue focus, understandably to have some of the odd branch business resolved on the upstream parts (and less water). Plus they both have page numbers. What page number haven't I put? - Adam37 Talk 15:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Its the innumerate "sudden antiquary" paper writers I don't understand as I said above. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've read the odd 18th century synopsis on British-History and various other flick-throughs that suggest Guildford "has always been the county town" but there are a few others of similar date which assert the town doesn't really have one and strongly like Southwark and Croydon for it. These same people singing the constant praises of Guildford and paying scant service to what a county town truly was, a place of the meaningful markets, government etc., know the price of everything and value of nothing.- Adam37 Talk 16:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah right! Based, I believe on a mis-reading of a medieval charter. Ironically Surrey may soon have a county town - Woking. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

True. Coming back to the flow of the Blackwater I've read one recent Project/Group long paper that reckon it took the top of the Wey N or W branch https://surreynaturepartnership.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/wlp-catchment-plan_sert_-draft-v3.pdf (yes, I thought that was likely) and one that thinks the opposite (as to the "upper part of the Blackwater" only) http://weyriver.co.uk/theriver/wey_north_B.htm. That certainly muddies the waters no end. But looking at the anticline upshift and those sharp, twisty, soft-matter-lined gradients down from Farnham, my contention that a flow from Tilford could not ascend, contrary to all geology and go north, up to Farnham is all the stronger https://www.farnhamgeosoc.org.uk/currentdocuments/localgeology.pdf - Adam37 Talk 17:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to publicly flog myself for putting Jane Austen's Chawton, I thought if writers about city bliss put one more "located", "situated", then play a game of loose associations and buzzwords I'll raise them a Jane Austen idyll like all the signs round there and enough thatch and exclusively old architecture for them to chew on and actually pay a visit. Very bad. A sort of multum in parvo Rutland motto which leads me on to Wey beers - have we covered that?- Adam37 Talk 17:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wey beers? You have me strangely interested! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Saving that book for my retirement. There's a book in everyone!- Adam37 Talk 20:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adam37. I have just checked the reference for your claim that the north branch is sometimes known as the western branch. You have added a reference to a 1930 paper: Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Volume 41, 1930, p173 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s2m1AAAAIAAJ. I presume that you have found this through a Google Books search and that you were only able to view a snippet, however I have access to the full paper concerned, which is: Linton DL (1930). "The development of the Wey drainage system". Proc. Geol. Ass. 41 (2): 160–174.. The paper is very interesting and much of the second half is devoted to the capture of the headwaters of the Blackwater by the Wey. Having read the paper in full, I can categorically state that the author does not call the North Branch of the Wey the Western Branch, (in fact he uses the term 'Alton Wey', which I have seen elsewhere). It's true that author does talk about the 'western branches' of the Wey (note the plural), but when you look at the full context it is clear that he means the river above the confluence with the Cranleigh Waters - i.e. the 'western branches' in this usage refers to BOTH the North and South Branches. I will therefore remove the reference on the grounds that it has failed verification. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. To contribute my sixpence, I shunned the English conventional N/S or E/W dichotomy as I thought it rather cliché and unhelpful and had recalled some calling it the western branch, possibly in an old travelogue. Your plural quote is not true (", it is worth mentioning the suggestion of Mr. Bury , † that the upper - waters of the western branch of the Wey at one time found their way to the Thames through the gap at the western..."), but it does clearly connote both in the light of what you say, leaving no east branch ever so called very unsatisfactorily. However now I see that was a multi-use term too. Very odd. Even in 1836, Transactions of the Geological Society of London - Page 143 the Cranleigh one simply called the "south-eastern branch of the Wey". I demur on the half of the paper about capture of the upper Blackwater if for no better reason than want of evidence. Se my talk page the conflicting story of the Alton branch flowing north which seems a 'natural' line.- Adam37 Talk 18:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adam37. I'm afraid that ", it is worth mentioning the suggestion of Mr. Bury , † that the upper - waters of the western branch of the Wey at one time found their way to the Thames through the gap at the western..." does not come from the 1930 paper. It is from a 1910 book: Geology in the Field: The Jubilee Volume of the Geologists' Association (1858-1908) p483. This is the problem with using the snippet view in Google Books, I'm afraid - you really do need to read the whole source and not just a few fragmentary sentences. Again "upper - waters" here in your quote relates to the Wey above the confluence with the Cranleigh Waters (i.e. it includes both the North and South Branches).

I think at this point it is wise to conclude that the use of the term "western branch" for the North Branch was uncommon a century ago, is not in current 21st century usage and that this claim should therefore be removed from the main body of the article. I would however support a footnote, which also referred to a historical use of the names 'western Wey' and 'Alton Wey', should you wish to add one. (Incidentally the 1930 paper refers to the South Branch as the 'Headley Wey'.) Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Labouring your reply so verbatim when someone has conceded the point is didactic. I don't think with so many disparate terms this is the place for the glossary, I was wrong. When someone says agreed of my style they do mean 'agreed'.- Adam37 Talk 19:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Lede sections for articles on UK rivers

Hi Adam37. I’ve noticed that you have making several edits to articles on rivers in the past few weeks. A lot of your edits involve changes to the lede sections. Those changes can sometimes overload what should be a clear, concise summary with excessive detail that might find a better home elsewhere in the articles concerned. I wondered if we could perhaps agree a ‘formula’ for the first couple of sentences of the lede for articles on rivers, which might help readers (some of whom might be of Primary School age) to quickly understand what an article is about.

The aim here is to reach a consensus to ensure that all active editors are pulling in the same direction and that individual contributions are constructive.

My proposal would be:

The River X is a insert type of river here in county in part of the country. It rises in location of source and flows general direction for length to location of mouth.

Some examples:

The River Mole is a tributary of the River Thames in southern England. It rises in West Sussex near Horsham and flows northwest through Surrey for 80 km (50 miles) to the Thames at East Molesey, opposite Hampton Court Palace.

The River Cherwell is a tributary of the River Thames in central England. It rises near Hellidon in Northamptonshire and flows southwards through Oxfordshire for 40 miles (64 km) to meet the Thames at Oxford.

The River Itchen is a chalk stream in Hampshire in south east England. It rises to the south of New Alresford and flows 26 miles (42 km) to meet Southampton Water below the Itchen Bridge.

The River Test is a chalk stream in Hampshire in the south of England. It rises at Ashe near Basingstoke and flows southwards for 40 miles (64 km) to Southampton Water.

The River Meon (/ˈmiːɒn/) is a chalk stream in Hampshire in the south of England. It rises at East Meon then flows 34 km (21 mi) in a generally southerly direction to empty into the Solent at Hill Head near Stubbington.

On a more personal note, I know that when you receive well-intended, constructive criticism from others, you have a tendency to 'lash out' and accuse those who do not appreciate your ‘style’ of wanting to dumb down and of being unable to understand ‘academic English’. I am an active research scientist at one of the UK’s top research universities and in the 12 years since I received my PhD, I have authored 30 peer-reviewed publications. (Through my university I have access to journal articles and book chapters that are behind a paywall - you know this already.) I therefore have a very good idea of what well-written ‘academic English’ looks like. In your talk pages you often claim or imply that you are writing in an academic way - you are not. Academic writing is clear, precise and concise. Sentence length does vary, but it is rare to find one with more than three clauses - two clauses (mostly one main and one subordinate) is the general rule. When terms are being defined (as they would be early in the lede) a short sentence with a single main clause (and no subordinate clauses) is common.

I hope the above does not sound too critical, but I am writing this with the best of intentions. I would urge you to draw breath before you dive in to respond and not to feel offended/angry. As I say, I am trying to ensure that we do not clutter the lede with over-detailed descriptions of a river’s course, that would be more appropriate in the main body of the article. (I anticipate that you will have an objection to a ‘formula’ - and clearly there will be a few exceptions for which the suggestion above is not appropriate - but those cases will be rare.) Clearly you are an editor with great passion and enthusiasm - and you have an ability to find interesting historical and scientific details which others would envy - and much of the information that you add is relevant and important. I want to work with you (and other enthusiastic editors) on ensuring that our contributions enhance articles for readers.

With very best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't rush into things emotively as you imply. I think standardisation is OK if limited to the type you give. Let's exclude 'river X' is a river (stress added). The reason I think flexibility needs to be actively recognised rather than subjugated is that River x is 99% of the time a descriptor never seen in the streetwise or historical context at all! As for taking the michael out of style. Sacrilege! No well, seriously I just don't see why you have to bring sentence length into it. If anyone needs to stop, slow down and read then it is today's younger generation. Who are being fed a soundbite culture. And need to learn to look behind assertions and how and in what ways they might be challenged. Looking back at causation, alternatives in interpretation and so on. I'm somewhat for a modicum of introductory rigour. But I'm all for recognising diversity and modifying style accordingly even of a summary. The two are not always easily combined. I don't see why we have to be too prescriptive about the length of introduction. The main thing is to do justice, not do lip service to special cases.- Adam37 Talk 19:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adam37. Thank you for your reply. I am not sure that I fully understand everything you have written, but let’s start where I think we agree. As I understand it, you can see the value of a ‘formula’ or of ‘standardisation’, but like me you appreciate that there will be some cases where this form of words does not fit. I also agree that we would want to avoid starting with ‘River X is a river’ - however in the examples above, you’ll see that I have not used that phrasing. So I ask now that when you edit river/canal etc articles in the future that you follow this pattern.

I note that you have said that you do not ‘rush into things emotively’, however this is not the impression you give. Just last week you wrote (on this talk page) - “Also how dare you…” as part of a conversation with a very knowledgeable and generous editor. The archive of this talk page is filled with similar apparent ‘fits of pique’. (You have admitted in that archive that you do need to 'chill' more.) If those comments are sarcastic and/or meant to be funny, then they fail to hit the target by some margin. There are several who have (justifiably in my opinion) taken offence. You should also think about the tone that you adopt in your edit summaries.

I will ignore the comment that you made about ‘today’s younger generation’, save only to note that one of real tragedies of our current political climate is the way in which old and young have turned against each other. In part, this is because of a lack of respect and unwillingness to listen on both sides. Perhaps you would do well to remember that divide and to seek to unite rather than to pour scorn. The young would accuse certain members of the older generation of believing too much in 'soundbites' (Get Brexit Done; oven-ready deal etc) and not questioning 'assertions' (the German car industry will march into Merkel’s office to demand a good deal; they need us more than we need them) etc. (Note that I am not making any assumptions or comment on your own politics - that is your own business!)

Finally you have queried sentence length. There are a huge number of studies which show that the longer a sentence is, the less comprehensible it is - a quick internet search will reveal this to you. I would respectfully suggest that you take a little time to look at a newspaper or book that you enjoy reading and to look at the way that sentences and paragraphs are divided up. I think you it will surprise you how short sentences are compared to the ones that you often use. It really is very rare to find a sentence with more than three clauses. I very much admire your pursuit of precision, but would caution you that when taken to extremes, it very easy to end up being long winded and incomprehensible. Good writing is clear, precise and concise in equal measure - those qualities apply here as much as anywhere else.

With very best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with the principles you now set out. I also now have a civility guru. There is an unaddressed question: what if a river has many competing sources? I propose for many where the source is rarely, variously or unconvincingly mapped stating the type of headwater drainage pattern:-

X rises in [1/2/3/4/ [main] / several] headwaters [ which form many forks and related branches ] / [running in parallel ] and the other options on that drainage page, [one of which is the most conventionally marked source].

River source is interesting reading and I bet you've read it. As to British rivers especially this is often not the same as the named source. This is one of those annoying quirks of prolific backwardness which every time one set of mapmakers or book writers think they done away with, some firebrand reactionaries contest, or is probably as political as the Thames and best reserved for a whole controversy section. We are forbidden by convention from writing the sources in the infobox / listed right, but we can write [various] sources [optionally: in X]. I refer to my original 'glib' remark that defining water in Britain is rather messy. I don't want to pre-empt people's replies as that was rather short-tempered, supercilious and bad-mannered of me. I will offer you all best wishes and thanks too, as I think thanks is often lacking when obviously we assume that we, as contributors, making great strides in research of course offer each other implicit thanks in every post we write. I do have that thanks in my thoughts. But I am often too keen on not being trodden on or sideswept to express it.- Adam37 Talk 20:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adam37. Thank you for your reply. Perhaps this is the problem with Wikipedia - it’s a site that often views the universe as a perfect hierarchy. It 'sees' each object/territory/phenomenon as both a constituent part of something bigger and can itself be neatly subdivided, (sub categories nestle perfectly in categories, which fit together with to form super-categories etc). (So in your example, every river has a single source, which is the one furthest from the mouth and all other headwaters are tributaries.) As we all know, real life is not like that - clear distinctions are rarer than you might expect. And perhaps that is the problem with Wikipedians in general (at the risk of stereotyping) - we tend to be people who like the world to be well ordered and precisely defined, and are guilty of perhaps getting a little frustrated when expectation doesn’t quite live up to reality. Often the conflicts on Wikipedia are between contributors who share the same goal of describing a ‘messy’ world in an ordered way, but disagree on how best to achieve it!

So to rivers with multiple sources. I am well aware of the issues you describe, however I think that you (working with others) have already solved this problem successfully in one case! Take a look at the Pipp Brook article. The lede says clearly that the stream/river has two sources on the north side of Leith Hill, but does not elaborate further. Then in the main body of the article, you have detailed the precise locations of those sources. That section works well enough that no one has sought to change it in five years! I think this ‘formula’ could easily be replicated elsewhere.

I think if a river has a source that is formally acknowledged as being THE source, then in the lede I would only mention that one source. However in the main body of the article, I would discuss other headwaters. (I would want to avoid talking about ‘parallel’ headwaters - after all, parallel lines do not meet!) For a river with multiple headwaters in close proximity, none of which is identified as the source, I would simply say:

X rises in/as [1/2/3/4/ [main] / several] headwaters in/around place, from where it flows general direction for length to the mouth.

So far as getting the ‘official/traditional’ source ‘wrong’ (as some might say is the case for the Thames), I don’t think this is a uniquely British phenomenon! (See the Rhine and Danube to pick on two obvious examples.) Conventions have been established (often by 19th century antiquarians) that in an ideal world we would now change/redefine (not something unique to rivers). But as Wikipedians, it’s not our job to try to change those conventions - our duty is to write about them and to point out how they are disputed (using appropriate citations, of course!).

I hope this is of use. I think the thing to ask yourself is ‘what needs to be in the lede and what can be left for discussion in the main text?’ Of course I am guilty here of anthropomorphising, but 'needs to be', seems to be the best way of conveying the requirement of a reader for a clear, concise and precise summary at the start of an article. It is important, I feel, to remember that whilst we may all enjoy the process of research and writing for Wikipedia, at the end of the day we are in large part working (voluntarily) as a service to others. Those 'end users' should never be pushed out of our minds by an inflated sense of self importance or intellectual superiority.

With thanks and very best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adam37. I thought I’d pass along these two links for you:

Sara Vincent (4 August 2014). "Sentence length: why 25 words is our limit". gov.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2020.

Adrian Wallwork (4 August 2012). "Sentence length, conciseness, clarity and ambiguity". SpringerLink. Retrieved 13 September 2020.

Perhaps I could then respectfully ask you to review one of the sentences which you wrote yesterday in the lede of the Main (river) article? Ignoring the length conversion, it is 47 words with three clauses:

"It can in political geography conveniently be deemed to rise as the White Main in the north of the south-east state Bavaria and flows west for 525 kilometres (326 mi) to meet the Rhine below Russelsheim, which is between three loosely clustered German cities: Mainz, Wiesbaden and Frankfurt am Main."

I would ask you to consider the phrases “It can in political geography conveniently be deemed” and “loosely clustered German cities” and to ask yourself whether a visitor to this page, who knows nothing of the rivers of central Germany would find this easy to understand. I hope that approaching your words after a little time has passed, will give you a fresher perspective on the readability of this extract. There are many that would find this incomprehensible - that is not a reflection on education/literacy standards, the younger generation, soundbite culture etc - that is a reflection on the quality of your writing; I was only able to work out what you mean, by looking at the previous version of the page before your changes. I would urge you to set yourself a strict word limit for each sentence that you write and to review your draft for clarity before hitting the submit button.

As I say, I admire your quest for precision, but precision must not come at the expense of of clarity or conciseness.

With my very best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I clearly have been loving far too many House of Lords and Court of Appeal judgments. Times have moved on.- Adam37 Talk 09:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A308

Hi Adam37. Can I ask you to review the following sentence from the lede of the A308 road article please? (Ignoring the conversion template, it is 40 words long.) I have no idea what you are trying to say.

The road has four principal axes to stay no more than 3 miles from the River Thames to run from Central London upstream to Bisham, Berkshire which faces the town of Marlow across the river, explaining its four main orientations.

I would suggest that it's worth borrowing from the formula that we developed for rivers - all you need to say is where the road starts and ends, and also to note that a section is apparently 'missing' due to multiplexes with the A219 and A3. With very best wishes and thanks Mertbiol (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Will do. But I am not sure that your comment is any clearer, involving the jargon "multiplex" which is not in lay media use for instance. It quite clearly for those acquainted or dreaming the world of geometry says what it says. It says it takes four straight lines to roughly follow the Thames from Central London to a point in Berkshire. It also mentions Marlow as the UK economy cannot be ignored. It serves a number of populous towns. I think be bold and just tone down my own sophistry which I admit was rather present. I think axis and orientation are unnecessary.- Adam37 Talk 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also multiplexes could pass muster if the road was made bigger and free-flowing. Anyone who knows Hammersmith, Putney, Commercial Road and around Southwark knows these places are daftly choked pinchpoints of London roads where yes pollution across the centre is thus discouraged in favour of rail (good). This means further asthma etc. is likely net reduced (but only away from them). The hyperactive motor lobby on here would hasten to point out they are 3-into-1-lane style mergers by an android with a hatred for humanity. The reasoned, enlightened counter-argument is it is the roads further out that are too big, obstructions to nature, take up useful land, blight nearby land too, but excite the motor lobby no end, which are the true multiplexes, or more accurately "funplexes"...Plus ça change.- Adam37 Talk 18:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Proving how horribly divisive roads are, I looked to the third road, being 3-digits at the above article and see it says. "dual carriageway accordingly at times beset by illegal racing" in the lede! If you, too, agree that is a bit non-encyclopedic then demand a citation or demote at will.- Adam37 Talk 18:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also the 2 sentences there (A217) will definitely leave you panting for breath. I can't say roads make me anywhere near as breathless as rivers.- Adam37 Talk 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Adam37. Much improved. With thanks Mertbiol (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Surrey Archaeological Collections papers now available on Archaeology Data Service

Hi Adam37. I thought you'd let you know (as a fellow Surrey enthusiast) that many research papers from the Surrey Archaeological Collections are now available from the Archaeology Data Service here: ADS Library search and Journal index. I may be telling you something you already know, but I've only just discovered that these articles are 'open source' (i.e. no longer behind a paywall). I am not sure if this is a recent change, but I wasn't aware until this month and so thought I would spread the word.
Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I am very interested in the Magna Carta barons' camp and wonders of the Roman period.- Adam37 Talk 12:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Atlantic hurricanes seasom

Hi there Adam37,

I saw that you removed the word “subsequently” numerous times from the article. I see that it was of good-faith and you wanted to change up the wording a little. However, some of your word choice has been grammatically incorrect, with some missing commas and sentences that make little sense. Next time, please make sure that your edits are grammatically correct, since it is hard to copy edit the whole article. Thanks for your contributions, and have a nice day! Cheers, ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Adam37 I was wondering do you frequent the hurricanes corner of Wikipedia? I haven't seen you edit these pages until that day.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Not since long yesteryear. I now recall they're edited at one hell of a pace. Not in a bad way. We have rather had a helluva a year "and they didn't escape my radar".- Adam37 Talk 17:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. and it's not the first time on here we are coming across grammar "reversionista dictators" in spades. Such a waste of energy. I can't work out whether they specialize in PR, in government comms, or twitter, or all three. There's so much more energy to give to other articles, please.- Adam37 Talk 17:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a very busy article, the Atlantic hurricane one. Pacific typhoon one is also very busy especially this past week or so.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Civil parish bot

Hi. You seem to have been left off an original ping list for this one. Your involvement in place articles could suggest you might interested in this topic. Thanks. See:https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England/Parishes_RfC Acabashi (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully I've given them a grasp of proportion. It seems to be the sort of new-fangled craze to create articles about absolutely every division, even when they are quite beyond global obscurity.- Adam37 Talk 16:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in A329(M) motorway

The article cites "Summerhayes 2010" and "Deacon 1972" but no such sources are listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Won't help sorry R. I'm not the source and the fact that it has an article to that level of detail is, to my view "daft", but some others will differ!- Adam37 Talk 20:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's a very disheartening attitude that you "won't help" when you clearly can help. I have fixed it by figuring out where you copied the info from. Can you at least copy full references next time? You should also at least mention where info is copied from in the edit summary per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Renata (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a particular editor... Now I see what section you mentioned, I recall why I really didn't want to turn back to the article. We sort of have really different approaches. He used the Harvard style in his other article hence the problem arises. I apologise for my laziness. These are really good official report references so great work.- Adam37 Talk 09:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Motorized square

Hello Adam, while reading through the jaywalking article I stumbled upon this term. As I can't find it in a dictonary or using Google I'd like to ask you what synonym could be used for this term.

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Jaywalking&diff=prev&oldid=965155234

Greetings from Germany Eike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.193.4 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Eike. I am conscious that in France, in at least 1⁄2 of the small squares (place = platz) you cannot use motor vehicles; except for deliveries, in those that you can use motor vehicles I am looking for a convenient shorthand. I tend toward the German model of English where you can simply use terms somewhat creatively and indeed motorized in some dictionaries appears as an opposition to pedestrianized. I will rewrite, as obviously in a pedestrianized place = platz = square a man can cross where he wants. Happy New Year!- Adam37 Talk 11:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you for the clarification. I wish you a happy new year, too, and stay healthy. Eike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.122.226 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Edward

Have you got a source that the Black Prince, Bexley is named after Edward the Black Prince? I'd quite like to look it up and flesh out the article a bit more with it, as it's rather stubbish at the moment. I used to go to keyboard fairs there and play on the new digital Hammond organ. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There is only that Black Prince in regional history.

1. Hasted and other main researchers who cite contemporary manorial inquisition post mortem confirms Chislehurst was confirmed directly to pass to Joan of Kent, his wife. So were several other manors. Rumours of courting by the Cray are it seems uncited from the time; this was her third-husband and an arranged marriage.
2. Hall Place may have had a forerunner, but its fabric starts two centuries later. Agreed: water down the folk history/ghost stories from Sutton Companion to the Folklore, Myths and Customs of Britain! These works confirm Hall Place's hidden agenda in whatever hot and cold running ghosts it offers.
3. However not to be discounted for inherent profit/intrigue-making, "Local tradition asserts that Hall Place itself was a shooting-box of the Black Prince." See in 1911: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Selborne_Magazine_and_Nature_Notes/emNCAQAAMAAJ - Adam37 Talk 19:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Graph

hi I saw the graph you'd created: [12] for the 2019 election and thought it was great! I was wondering if you might add it to the other article about MPs who lost in 2019: [13] as atm that article's graph isn't very good and there is even a graph for "MPs changing seats not returned" which makes no sense, but the graph you made would make it look better. SunnyOne342 (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been a pleasure to fix the headings. Very ambiguous. Also there are no graphs, there are tables. They were made by very high-up editors here in wikipedia who like to lord over UK elections. It is worthwhile submitting to A. Pope's "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" in regards to their somewhat hard-to-grasp columns, in my considerable experience of them.- Adam37 Talk 12:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on Members of Parliament

I think your link to the Battersea article is a bit broken, as for me it leads straight to the page as it currently exists. Perhaps copying this will serve you better. I learnt this magic from the H:PLINK page. Domeditrix (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Done thanks.- Adam37 Talk 12:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

ndash

Just noted your edit to Euston Square, where you wrote abc – def, and thought maybe you hadn't come across {{snd}} yet? It encapsulates &nbnsp;–, so prevents awkward line breaks that result in a line beginning with a dash.

FYI only, free feel to ignore. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's good but I'm really not concerned about people using a browser at the wrong resolution to make their side panels too big or small. Countless are the times I have spelt out what images show so people without full sight have at least a hope of what is going on. I will of course adopt your learning and am immensely grateful. However I find it less important than the changes I have effected - just to note - on other pages of course.- Adam37 Talk 11:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Spam and consensus-jumping

Hi Adam

Please see my reply to you[14] on my talk. I urge to promptly revert your mass-messaging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Gosh your opinions are strong. It's not consensus jumping. It's not spam. Get a grip.- Adam37 Talk 19:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Obtuse edit summary

Had to check that this wasn't about a tag I'd added, to see whether it was me that you were personally attacking. Checking the edit summary for when it was added, it's a fair enough point: it read like it was talking about the view from the bridge rather than the path. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the natural reading, I think the strained reading of someone needing the khazi.- Adam37 Talk 18:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason is where there are two perfectly plausible subjects and one would result in a logical error (absurdity) you select the subject of the not very long sentence that makes most sense, rather than proceed to tag at will. Wikipedia is not a tag fest.- Adam37 Talk 18:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way these are not "attacks" as plainly putting a tag cannot be totally "thick" it is a forgiveable hypebole for narrowly prescriptive in English comprehension and indolent in removing any possible absurdity from the narrow way in which "one" reads. It is not effort at all to move the 100% blatant digression to the start of the sentence is it? It is thick to the extent it assumes next readers will all be incapable of understanding which should contextually not have to relate to the last noun before ,which.- Adam37 Talk 18:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On reflection WP:NOTSTATUTE refers; moulding every sentence so any honi soi jobsworth lawyer reading seeing a contrarian view to normal, logical, natural words stands defenceless is permissible but not necessary. You will find far more frequent examples across global geography, but it would be 'ever so correct' LB Richmond where such anxiety is acute. To that extent I think the tag not really that bad, but it is still a lazy lack of application of mind, even 99% intrinsically, i.e. among good people who are unable to visualise who do have my honest sympathy.- Adam37 Talk 18:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the sentence, which I agree needed some trivial rearrangement. Making a crack about "the thickness of the tag maker's head" is inappropriate, though. Comment on content, not on the contributor, and all that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to 2 postcode area articles

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at UB postcode area. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

You've tested my patience with your edits to postcode area articles, you really have - particularly your "correlations to traditional terms" on the UB and HA articles, and your rambling (politest word I could think of) on the talk page for the HA article.

Surely you, a Wikipedia editor of nearly fourteen years, know very well that each and every Wikipedia article is supposed to appeal to casual readers first and foremost, and is supposed to be edited from a neutral point of view too? Articles about Manchester United are neither supposed to appeal solely to fans of Manchester United and/or soccer, nor be edited from the POV of a fan of Manchester United and/or soccer. Articles about The Simpsons are neither supposed to appeal solely to fans of The Simpsons and/or animated sitcoms, nor be edited from the POV of a fan of The Simpsons and/or animated sitcoms. And, indeed, articles about the postcode areas of the UK are neither supposed to appeal solely to fans of postcodes and/or geographic areas, nor be edited from the POV of a fan of postcodes and/or geographic areas.

Your "correlations to traditional terms" come across, to me anyway, as bordering on violating both WP:OWN and WP:FANCRUFT. And don't think that I'm the only one objecting to your actions here, just because no-one else has up to now: that may very well be just chance. I'm sure you know very well, too, that some edits can go for months and even years before someone finally objects to them with some justification.

I strongly suggest you reconsider your approach to editing postcode area articles. You do not want edit wars to develop on these articles and blocks to be dished out in turn, do you? (Wikipedia admins can be *very* unforgiving, another thing I'd like to think you know very well.) I suggest that if there is something you really, honestly feel should be included in these articles - no matter how relevant it looks, how much sense it makes, and how appealing it may be to casual readers - you discuss it on the corresponding talk pages first (without rambling, too). And if the outcome of the discussion turns out to be one you don't accept, well I'm sorry, but you might just have to accept it.

Thank you. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:8090:10A0:C7C6:BB65 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary @2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:8090:10A0:C7C6:BB65: I would point you towards WP:GAC and the present rating of the articles. You will find serious academic readers are the aim of all articles. Do you really think that each post town was just 'invented' and that is not interesting how much they diverge from what most people or many people conceive those places as, in graphic form. What about WP:BOLD and a little tolerance for latitude. The approach taken is one of homogenisation. And it is rather Soviet in how it comes across. By the way I am no fan of postcodes one bit. Don't delete talk discussions as that is a far bigger breach of policy. I could easily report you. But I am not the sort to make pointless ideological threats like you do.

The very least you should do is upgrade the articles as other people will spend time adding more debateably useful content of some sort and it will waste their time completely.- Adam37 Talk 18:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You're "not a fan of postcodes one bit"?

Then with all the respect in the world, why on earth are you even editing these postcode area articles in the first place? Would you, for instance, seriously expect someone to make frequent and sizeable edits to articles about Coronation Street despite not being a fan of this soap one bit, or indeed any soap at all? Or someone to make frequent and sizeable edits to articles about the Rolling Stones despite not being a fan of this band one bit, or indeed a music fan at all?

Do you not stop and think, even for the slightest moment, that your time here on Wikipedia would perhaps be better spent editing articles relating to things that you *are* a fan of, or at least take a significant interest in? How big a need is there, really, for you to edit articles relating to things that you are not a fan of, besides making the most basic edits in these articles like correcting punctuation, fixing tables, expanding references and adding tags?

And what about WP:BOLD, you ask. While there's no denying that boldness is encouraged when editing any article, you also cannot deny that it's only encouraged to an extent. With your undiscussed (at that point) "correlations to traditional terms", for instance, I'm sorry to say that, IMHO, you were being a little *too* bold. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:5C2D:589B:D894:2386 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

So you edit these postcode area articles simply because you want them to get so-called "good article" status and keep it, even though you are not a fan of postcodes?

Like, what the heck? Wouldn't you be more inclined to want articles relating to things that you *are* a fan of - or at least take a significant interest in - to get "good article" status? Wouldn't someone who likes golf but not soccer, for instance, be more inclined to want the article about Ernie Els to get "good article" status, rather than the article about David Seaman - and therefore edit the former article accordingly, and not edit the latter article at all (except perhaps to make minor fixes)? 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:91F6:7747:E957:35F1 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent copyedit on Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies

I recently reverted a copyedit by you on Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies on the basis that the edits did not overall improve the article. Aside from some cosmetic copyediting, you introduced a number of grammatical constructions that simply do not make sense, and as I suspect this will be contested, I wanted to give a few examples:

• "The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland announced in 2006 that minor changes to seats would take place as to the east of the province (such as Belfast)"

This is not proper grammar. The previous construction was absolutely fine, but simply replacing "as to" with "in" would be better than this.

Wrong; in is ambiguous, as to reminds the audience it's not local gov. seats.- Adam37 Talk 06:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Greater London was reviewed borough-by-borough – some were "paired" i.e. see a straddling seat or more to ensure that the sizes of the electorates are not overly disparate, that is little malapportionment due to demographic change."

I genuinely have no idea what this sentence is now trying to communicate.

The "or more" means "or more than one"; this is implicit. Slow down and read, please. The latter is a technical term so wikilinked and enframes a much more complex idea.

• "This net increase of 4 constituencies resulted in an overall increase, as approximately preset by statutory quota, in the number of Westminster constituencies from 646 to 650 for the 2010 general election."

I just don't know what the italicised section is saying.

The quota did not derive from personal preference of the Commission. It was set by law.

In general, "seat" is not a synonym for "constituency" - a constituency is a geographical construction: a set of borders on a map describing a particular geographic area. A "seat" is an MPs place in the House of Commons. The two are similar but different but there are places where you have introduced "seat" in place of "constituency" and it just doesn't work.

Wrong. REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS ACT 1885. The Victorians had no qualms with your particular obfuscation of using "constituencies"; it is your preference for sophistry that is saddening, not mine for equally precise terms.- Adam37 Talk 06:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Overall, I don't like to revert an edit where only part of it is particularly problematic, but there were so many poor changes introduced by that edit I felt that I didn't have much choice.

I bet you don't then copy out what you don't understand.- Adam37 Talk 06:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

More concerningly, this appears to be something of a pattern - I happened to be reading Faraday Building earlier and the grammar was very confusing, to the point where I had to go back through the edit history to try and establish what was the article was trying to say. I saw that you had recently copyedited that article as well.

Oh well perhaps you are beholden to your own style. Your style doesn't rule the roost and you are clearly too easily ruffled as that was virtually fine and better in fewer unnecessary bytes too, per the "fluff" essay. I hope you get what I'm talking about. This not a vivid wp:BASICENGLISH journalese article penned by the BBC for those who might be young teenagers but might occasionally require reaching for a dictionary or look-up for that particular audience where succinctly putting across the best terms on a technical subject. If one wants a more basic rendering then Basic English wikipedia exists. Few people know this.- Adam37 Talk 06:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I am quite sure that you have the absolute best of intentions, evidenced by your frequent references to various policies and guidelines in your edit summaries, but the simple problem is that your edits are not always an improvement and sometimes are reducing the quality of articles. I might gently suggest that where you are amending the syntax of a sentence, you read and re-read what you have written as though you were an outsider trying to read the article for the first time, and try and establish whether what you have written would make immediate sense to someone else. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 22:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ninetyone. Again save bytes. It makes much more sense for me to reply here. I will take up your points even if they do not represent brevity. Which to many minds has a beauty all of its own.- Adam37 Talk 06:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I happened upon this discussion by chance. I found the Faraday Building article readable, but not basic (which is not a criticism!) and quite enjoyed it! The only sentence I wasn’t sure about was in the lead section: what does it mean by “It reaches double its normal number of storeys, ten above ground”? I’m sure it is just my own issue with understanding, but could you clarify? Incidentally, great work! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Adam can you remember WP:CIVIL with regards to edit summaries? "Nonsense", "claptrap" - this is passing judgement on editors who had their own reason to phrase things as they did. In some cases your edits are not improvements, they're just tinkering. Be more open to working with other editors, please. doktorb _words^deeds 07:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

OK OK. I will tone them down. But "subsequently" for a chronologically listed extra legal change. Isn't that obvious? Isn't equal representation a terrible bowdlerisation. How is never pairing with a mainland "equal". I have no doubt people write on here eloquently, and we have high quality states of all of these articles, but the petty "tinkering" or rather "non-WP:BIAS" I would stress I put in adds far more. After all, are we dragging stuff out? Are we in the business of lying? I do hope not, for I have also been guilty of that especially in earlier years. It is all to easy to get into that kind of business without knowing it, often regurgitating the sort of vague sophistry the "en vogue" top press gurus abound with.- Adam37 Talk 08:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Rochester and Strood

Please remember with editing and edit summaries to assume good faith and remain remain civil doktorb _words^deeds 22:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I do. Accept latitude in these things.- Adam37 Talk 17:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)