User talk:Philafrenzy/Archive 14

990: 441: 3417: 3231: 3174: 2171: 1340: 31: 816:, since it exists. It's also dead easy to create a new category in an existing hierarchy, so it would be very constructive to create a new "Category:Archives in Xxxshire" as you go along, where it doesn't exist - just copy and modify the one for Cambridgeshire, for example (looking at other examples, some have parent cats "Buildings and structures", others have "Education", Cambs has both; all seem to have "Culture" and "Archives in England"). I'll do West Sussex in a moment. 2575: 999: 1256: 2656: 2694: 1838: 3942: 3695: 2975: 2883: 2791: 2044: 1934: 1377: 713: 537: 345: 230: 115: 3579: 1071: 3831: 3211: 3154: 2151: 1320: 2487:

project to open a new museum and visitor attraction next year, and I wondered whether you might be interested in updating our page with the latest information. The existing content is largely still valid, just needing the name changing and the details of our project adding in (which are available on postalmuseum.org). I hope it isn't rude to ask - I would be very happy to do this myself but believe it might be considered a COI.

452: 3354: 3310: 2205: 1698: 1470: 2565: 3912:

John, you haven't addressed the fact that the subject of the article is the source or that the material is not defamatory. I should also appreciate an acknowledgement that the threat of blocking me was a little heavy-handed since I did not add the material in the first place and was in the process of

3108:

I don't think many people would dispute whether listed buildings are notable (the USA are way ahead of the UK in writing stub articles on many buildings on the Heritage Register). To be honest, I didn't particularly mind "Works" with the {{Incomplete list}} template. But in line with normal Knowledge

883:

I followed on with all the rest I could see in stubs cat and parent "Archives in England" cat, creating new cats for several counties, and finding a couple where there was already a county cat you hadn't used. See my contribs list for details. (And if it weren't for that I'd have got out on an errand

1624:

know the appropriate category or categories — for instance, if I come across an article about a Canadian novelist, because I work with those categories regularly I already know exactly where to stick the article without having to look up what does or doesn't exist at what spelling or wording. But if

1651:

I infer you are not using hotcat? It is such a huge time saver and reduces the process to seconds. I don't believe you need to be exact, just close enough and others will refine, e.g. authors rather than authors from somewhere in particular. Hotcat tells you whether the category exists so you don't

3089:

I don't feel strongly about it but doesn't the word notable imply subjectivity as much as selected? You say they are all listed but not one has an article. A few articles about the more significant ones would certainly support the claim that they are notable. By the way, is there a non advertising

1554:

There were over 1,000 uncategorized pages in the batch I was working on yesterday — and because I wasn't able to get through them all in the amount of time I had available to dedicate to Knowledge, there are still almost 500 in today's batch. It's great that you did apply categories, but it's not

1509:

Thank you for your message and thank you for contacting me. I hope I have written this in the correct section. My reason for flagging the page and making the request for section deletion is based on the Knowledge statement that 'the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered

3073:

back to the original "Notable works". The chapels on the list are all listed buildings, therefore recognised as important, and are confident that Thomas is the architect. They were originally added because they were notable. "Selected" gives the impression they were chosen based on some sort of

2486:

I recently became the Digital Media Officer for the British Postal Museum & Archive and I notice that you have been responsible for a lot of improvements to our Knowledge page in recent years, so thank you very much. On February 4 we re-branded ourselves as The Postal Museum, as part of our

1533:

and other sources have already reported it in detail. We only summarise what is said elsewhere. Other material has been included in the article to keep it balanced including Dr Mohiaddin's professional positions, award and publications. We could consider expanding that content if you have some

3793:

There looks to be an error in the early life of Dorothy Galton: "...the Labour Party from 1920–25 and then in 1926-26 as private secretary...", should this be "...the Labour Party from 1920–25 and then in 1926 as private secretary..."? I didn't want to change this as I don't know the dates as

1807:

One of my pet peeves is Biography or Life sections in articles that are themselves biographies or just one very long paragraph for the whole article, so I normally break it up somehow. The idea is that although those sections are usually short, they invite an expansion.

1212:

I pointed out to the editor responsible for most of the content that it was not NPOV and he/she says he/she is working on this… My real concern is that the article may be heavily synthesised leading to a particular a conclusion, but I would appreciate your view.

1510:

when exercising editorial judgment.’ This article will cause significant emotional and mental suffering to the individual it is written about since it publicizes a private event in the private life of an individual who is not otherwise in the public eye.

3879:

John, are you aware that the material in this article was not added by me and was sourced to an article written by the subject herself? In addition, while it may be revealing it is in no sense defamatory in my view. I should be pleased to have your views.

910:

I have often wondered if there is a correlation between the weather and Knowledge editing, but you seem to prove it is higher when it is dryer and less when wet, the reverse of what I had expected! I will try to do some more of those record offices later.

3437:

for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining

3864:

I didn't add the content. You removed sourced material written by the subject herself. I just put it back and have been trimming it as well. Also it's not defamatory. Please don't threaten me in this way. It's not the right way to resolve things.

1864:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1573:

of directly adding categories myself — I have an obligation to get the list of uncategorized articles down to absolute zero, but I do not have a responsibility to manually find and apply categories to over 1,000 articles myself

3094:? They must be drawing their information from some other database. Regarding "selected works", I believe it is used in order to avoid the misleading impression that is otherwise given that the list of works is complete. 1601:

Sorry, it was a bit snarky of me. Thanks for your work but wouldn't it be easier to add one category using hotcat rather than adding one tag. Takes the same amount of time but fixes the problem which tagging doesn't.

2673:

Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 357 editors have been able to accomplish. The Knowledge Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

1868:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

3573: 3399: 3474: 1310: 2336:, though I really ought to be doing other things today... Knowledge, the infinite time-sink. But it's more constructive than playing patience/solitaire or slumping in front of the television. 512:

Thanks but I only put the work in to make it less awful. I see that the article might serve a function in a different type of publication but I don't believe that it should exist here. Sorry.

3680: 1232: 1035: 494: 3430: 604: 3074:

subjective decision (I hate the "Selected works" sections on artists' biographies for example). Hope that makes sense, or otherwise we'll all be going round in circles with this ;)

3144: 3462: 1359: 3359: 1060: 4024: 3201: 2086: 1483: 1346: 2555: 1415: 1036: 561: 3193: 2541: 2495: 1501: 973: 1305: 620: 4057: 2141: 751: 605: 3250: 1519: 3976: 3323: 3258: 2190: 2641: 383: 3803: 2917: 1910: 1030: 2332:, so it looks as if CUP changed their mind over the title at a lateish stage. I've made redirects from that version, with and without "The ". Will have a go at 3180: 2537: 2491: 928: 3818: 3298: 2252: 4025: 3621: 1463: 1620:

which categories do or don't exist for it to be filed in. I can and do skip the tag and just directly HotCat a category if I come across an article where I

968: 2534: 1979: 1817: 1802: 1782: 1711: 1578:

of applying the standard maintenance tag that exists for that purpose. So thank you for applying the categories, but the snarky accusation you directed at

3995: