My Talk Archives

Archive 1

Hello, just talk to me here if you want! please use this page for general chat. For edit remarks, click the link below. thanks!

/edit remarks

Hi,

Just been reviewing the article as I feel that it might be a good idea to put it up for Good article status, however, just looking back through the discussion page shows me that you took the information about the Piccadilly store and it's reputation as the "largest bookstore in Europe" out. Your justification for removing it by comparing it to the Foyles claim is believable as I myself have visited Foyles and Waterstone's Piccaddilly and they are both very big, but just doing a quick internet search brings up Piccadilly over and over again as the biggest store. I was wondering if you would complain massively if I put the claim back in with a reference or two, as it seems that it would fit into the article nicely and just adds polish to the article.

I'll wait for a response before I go and add this back in - thanks. RandomArticles 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't been around. Yes, I would object, because as you say yourself, the claim almost certainly isn't true. It is not unusual for things that aren't true to be repeated in the media many times. I suspect that what happened is that the claim was made in a press release, which in the nature of press releases probably didn't provide any credible backup for said claim. A few journalists would have picked it up because it was the most striking thing in the press release. It then gained momentum, as other journalists repeated it without even thinking that they needed to check it because it has already been featured in so many other "reputable" publications. Wikipedia should not fall into the same trap. The only credible source for the claim would be one that actually gave a statistic basis of comparison, and stated who prepared the statistics. It is very unlikely that any such source exists, because as we both believe from personal observation, the claim simply isn't true. Wimstead (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

You are listed as a member of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a project that I am currently trying to revive. Please have a look at the projects talk page for an explanation. If you would still like to participate, please could you leave a note on my talk page. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Random articles a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Waterstones, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stationary, Blackwells and Concession (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For some excellent work in tidying up articles on booksellers. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave a detailed comment on the article talk page but since I don't have much to say I'll say it here. First off, the article is clearly ready to at least be nominated for a GA. There are no article or section problem templates, very few sentences appear to be without references and the sections of the article don't seem to be dominated by a particular subject. As a first cut it looks good. The lede could be improved but at a glance I can't see much wrong with the article. You should nominate it if you feel you will have the time to respond to comments. If you would like a more thorough peer review I can provide one but that will take some time given the length of the article. Hope this helps. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome, cheers for the feedback - all I'd ask, having had a look through the lede stuff is, the structure makes sense, but I'm not sure about what info to include - a brief stand alone sounds great as advice, but it's difficult to put into practice. Any ideas?

I will nominate the article once I've got the lede down! ta, RandomArticles||Talk 23:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the lede should be two things. First it should serve as an executive summary for the article. I should be able to read the lede in it's entirely and come away with a decent understanding of all the article content. Second it should entice the reader to keep reading. Those two obviously work against each other. But as a general rule you should look at each major section and ensure it has a place in the lede. An article of this length can have a lede from 2-4 paragraphs in length, so keep that in mind. Protonk (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Blackwell UK, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you a heads up that I've started work reviewing the article. It should be completed in 3-5 days if everything goes accordingly. – Lemonade51 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ooh! exciting! please don't hesitate to keep me in the loop and ask questions etc about anything... RandomArticles||Talk 21:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, given the lead a cleanup and have passed the article. If you are considering to make this a WP:FAC one day, be sure to take a peer review first because there is always room for prose improvements and expansion. – Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will bare that in mind - ta for the cleanup stuff! RandomArticles||Talk 19:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Random articles for helping to promote Waterstones to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Waterstones Logo 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've reverted the logos back to the left as I agree with your reasons. Glad to be able to help. Cloudbound (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited W H Smith, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brentwood and Gillingham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Specialist Science School Symbol.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dillons Booksellers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gower Street. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Random articles. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Biodegradeble Polymers. Since you had some involvement with the Biodegradeble Polymers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]