Please don't revert everything I've done. I have tried a number of times and through different ways to get a good amount of discussion on what to do with the images but it always seems to dry up. I created History of BBC television idents in the first place and have uploaded many TV screenshots in the time I've been editing, but I've seen that we could do with more writing than we could with images. You may not like it but there are too many images currently within that writing compared with text. From the BBC Two section onwards the content gets smaller but the number of images stays around the same. Something needs to be done about it or it will never get to good article status. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a lot more interested in creating top quality articles than the GA process, but it's something to aim for, that's all. I'm not trying to do anything by stealth, or damage the quality of articles as you appear to have been suggesting. If you would mind telling me which articles I have been making less informative then I will certainly do my best to avoid such practice in the future. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content I added to the text in my earlier edits has now also been lost by your revert. I was thinking of listing the article at Request for Comment for more discussion if you approve? I think the more people get involved in the discussion, the better. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking. Hopefully we can make this a top quality article. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on your closure here?

It's not one of the sort you would normally nominate yourself. Jheald (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald, not sure what you are asking. The debate's conclusion was clear.....and is is one of the sort I would normally nominate ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. To clarify, as far as I am aware, since February last year you have nominated few if any alternate covers unless they looked very substantially similar to ones already in use -- basically in line with the proposal suggested at WT:ALBUMS, which received buy-in at WT:NFC, that Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. The album cover that has just been deleted was not very substantially similar to the other one shown, it was indeed significantly different, and widely distributed.

As for whether "the debate's conclusion was clear", you're well aware that these discussions are not votes. The submissions from Angus McLellan, Bility, and Rettetest showed no understanding of the policy framework of why we generally show album covers at all -- what the purpose is, and why it is considered to pass NFCC#8 -- and so, per the guidance to Xfd closers, should have been ignored. Jheald (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how many substantially different album cover's I've nominated since then - I've nominated about 200+ "extra" album covers in the past year (mostly for NFCC#1 reasons) and at least 200+ others have gone (and searching through FfD pages is a wearisome task). Virtually all have been deleted and some of these have been deleted even though they were different. You have a particular view about the policies as they apply to albums and appear to be interpreting the debate via that view. All of the participants, in some way, addressed the significance of the image to the article (WP:NFCC#8) and I really can't see any way that this debate could be closed differently. You, and others, have made it clear that you regard the existence of multiple releases as sufficient justification for multiple images and many others disagree. I see that over time the vast majority of such images that are nominated (via FfD or CSD etc) are deleted. Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple entropies in information theory, then oughtn't Entropy (information theory) be moved to the completely unambiguous title Shannon entropy? --Cybercobra (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the deletion review for File:Liberalhtv.jpg as "overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD". Since you initiated the deletion review, I thought I would leave you a note (although you probably have the page watchlisted...). Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your continued efforts to improve articles relating to television idents, I would like to present you with this Barnstar. I am retiring from Wikipedia, and hope you and others can make History of BBC television idents a really good article. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jheald! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Frederick E. Smith (author) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be dear to Micheal Courtney's heart. I don't want to cause him pain, even though I think his revision is a distinct dis-improvement, so I won't contest it. (My attitude to Wiki is that it's basically a social networking site, not an encyclopedia).PiCo (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that you have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_deletions.--Father Goose (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. I cannot believe you had the audacity to restore unsourced in a number of different articles despite my explicit citation of WP:BLP in my edit summaries.

Not only that, but you had the audacity to say "rv -- restore material which doesn't appear to be contentious" when you did so. [1] This would imply to me that you actually read what it was you were reverting and restoring.

Well then. Let us take a look at just a few of the HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS claims you blindly reverted and restored in the Willy Northpole article. I can only hope it was done blindly:

I'm rather curious really, but did you even bother to carefully read what it was you were restoring? Its really bad enough that we have over 30,000 known-to-be-unsourced BLP articles on Wikipedia, but I am just completely dumbfounded as to how or why you thought your actions were appropriate and how in the world you ever came to the conclusion that these types of unsourced claims are not contentious.

JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you posted under the wrong case :) MLauba (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit warring continues, you can and should report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheetah & Cubs Lying on Rock.jpg and File:Elephant Drinking.jpg I would like some advice on what I need to do next. I have received these photo's from Nick Brandt, by email. I don't know what else I need to add. Any advice would be great. Really want to make the article work. Thank you.Thisandthem (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up I left a response for you at User talk:Fastily regarding your query there about File:Nuclear-rail-flask.JPG. I tagged the image for F3 deletion, so hope that helps to clarify why. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i notice you tweak this template at time - we now have the death project and I have tried to start discussion about actually reviewing it - are you ok with that? It would be good if you could perhaps join in the discussion there - cheers SatuSuro 11:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - there may be stuff - there is also the portal - no big deal if nothing comes up of interest - just thought you should know - as to whether any of the stuff i have brought up at the talk page of the project ever gets done is another thing - cheers SatuSuro 13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That because the en page is a disamb, while the fr and the he page are not. Fale (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not completly right. Here there is written that {{surname}} have to be consider as disamb for interwiki bots. Fale (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Lane (commando), which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my repeated errors in Orders of magnitude (entropy), particularly the mis-reading of the number in Bekenstein's paper. -- The Anome (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your earlier talk page commentary on List of Biblical names, your expertise may be useful in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Biblical names. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to List of home computers by video hardware. I was thinking about adding the release year to the tables, but never came around to doing so. Thanks a lot! Mahjongg (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for helping with geocoding the UK railway stations still lacking coordinates. I've now regenerated that page, this time with improved filtering to prevent articles with OS coordinates from being listed, hopefully reducing the effort needed to trawl through false positives in search of articles that really need coordinates. I hope this is useful. -- The Anome (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment to the Detailed balance talk page that I'd like you to take a look at. Thanks —Quantling (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added another. —Quantling (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this discussion, on whether to replace the detailed balance page with a link to the corresponding section within the Markov chain page. Thanks—Quantling (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might be interested in a project I was considering, what I want to do is create a railmap of the UK based on 'free'(GNU sense) source information like the OS OpenData Streetview ( which should contain all notable UK railway stations) What this would mean is that it would not be required to rely on co-ordinate data sourced from Google/Bing.

The OS OpenData also IIRC included a Gazzateer, which included amongst it's details a number of named lines and stations. (you may wish to try and find this to improve the station co-ordinate data already present in Wikipedia)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Entropy. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kbrose (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cirt (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last year you commented on a deletion discussion of Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood. The related article Jewish control of the media has been created by an editor and has some issues, discussed in talk, you might want to comment upon. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thanks very much. Somehow I've only just noticed. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]