Hi there MortimerCat. I have just happened upon your sad acceptance of the "failure" of your collaborative exercise. It is a great pity that No good man has come to the aid of the party; and I should like to remedy that. I have just had a shot at the Maidstone article, so I am confident that there is much that can be done with this one.

It seems to me that it is pretty dire! The History section takes up almost one third of the whole (almost worthy of a separate article); the rest almost without exception is just a series of lists (against current Wiki policy); whilst there are no refences to anything at all (in line with Wiki policy). The introduction isn't one - it gives facts, which is not what the intro is for, is it? There are also a lot of references to what is actually for the Dover District. The rest is just a muddle of facts without proper connections (I shall look at your list (admirable) and see what I can do - watch that space! Regards Peter Peter Shearan (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... your comments on the Hailsham article. I have got embroiled in rewriting at the moment, and am using the "how to write" as my guide: I have just had a go at Crowborough which was a fairly dire example of the "add things all the time, never mind about having any sections such as History, Geography etc" school of thought. I have also been wading through all the civil parish articles in the Rother district, putting reflists where needed. Which is why I got to Crowborough, since I'm doing a similar exercise in the Wealden district. Let us keep the flag flying for good Wiki place articles!!! Regards Peter Shearan (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Think outside the box 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to do there? I can probably help. Gimmetrow 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again ... fine that you're tidying up loose ends in the E'bne article. Some of my original refs look strange in that the place of publication is coming up "written at Eastbourne/London" etc, instead of (Eastbourne), (London) etc. It could be that I used the wrong template. If you can see what is wrong perhaps you could fix them. Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about the peer review ... that was quick! With regard to the length, I see we are at 65KB. I can reduce the detail about Holywell ... take his point that Holwell throws the rest out of balance. The thing about "south east" and raids, is that London was an area of its own and not included in the south east region. I see that you are querying whether it's poss to look at refs when editing just a section, as opposed to the whole article. My experience is that it is not. I've been going over the refs to the piece about Louis Spears ... quoting page numbers. (That article is going to be far too long. When I started, I did not know about the recommended length. However, I'll just press ahead and finish it before seeing about cutting down. At present, it is a solo effort.) Do you think that we can get the E'bne piece down to an acceptable size by summarizing?Mikeo1938 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Hope you are keeping well! I hope I am not being too greedy: I have the Wealden list of civil parishes in front of me and gradually working through them, adding infoboxes and using the Wiki settlement guide as a basis for the rewrites, as you can probably see. One thing I am unsure about though, is how to get the location map on the page: there doesn't seem to be a guide as to how to do it. What is interesting, though is to get to see the pattern of settlements in the District, which is why I took time to redo the main Wealden article. A second point is: what is the recommended length over which an article no longer needs to be a stub? There were nearly 200 for East Sussex alone (not helped by all the Hastings wards!), and it seems to me that the aim should be to cut them, if at all possible. Surely that is why the geo-stub list is there, to get them deleted as soon as possible? Peter Shearan (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again - many thanks Peter Shearan (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ashburnham and Penhurst, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Ashburnham, East Sussex. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article now. Maybe you'd like to cast an eye over it in case any minor tweaks are needed. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates were already linked, I just continued from there. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't think I'm being condescending when I say congratulations on the great table of parish councils in the above article. It looks really good. Peter Shearan (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted your work today. You seem to be working on several place articles, and thought you might want to take a look at the WP:UKCITIES project guideline which may give a few of your projects some fresh goals and directions. Hope it helps! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the contact,

Glad to see some work was agreeable. On the "X Civil Parish" the problem there is that "Civil Parish" is a suffix, and a description, not part of the name. The Ordnance Survey doesn't record this as part of the official name, thereby failing verification, whilst the Office for National Statistics sometimes includes "CP" at the end when presenting statistics, but purely for disambiguation. I'd be inclined to leave it out as it seems to be the approach taken throughout the rest of England.

I should add that there is a Template:Infobox England and Wales civil parish for where a civil parish exists which doens't correspond to a single settlement, though I personally prefer Template:Infobox UK place. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology says "The name Rotherfield derives from the Anglo-Saxon redrefeld meaning cattle lands". Why the Anglo-Saxons called it "cattle lands"? Also the article says there are written records of Rotherfield in the 8th century. If this place existed in the 8th century, then exactly from when it bacame known as "Rotherfield"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know — I did not write that bit. But as my mission is updating all the East Sussex parishes I am sure one day I will find out. MortimerCat (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great photo you added to the Buxted page! Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 8-) MortimerCat (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, about the SSSI I have no objection in the renaming, at the time I created the page I struggled to think of what to dab it as and that was the first thing to come to me. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've changed the templates on the Chailey article. The cite web template has been fiddled with and is displaying dates in yyyy-mm-dd format as you are aware. Have at look at the talk page of the template where I have asked whether we should be manually changing dates. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had not noticed that. I was not doing a major exercise though, just a couple of articles I am currently working on ++ MortimerCat (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was dreading having to do it manually! I've edited something like 1,000 articles now. Ain't they heard of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"? Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of discussion, but not a lot of action! Still no word on when it's going to be fixed. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]