User talk:Hughcharlesparker

talk page
2006 archive
2007 archive
2008 archive
2009 archive
2010 archive
2011 archive

Nabataean language

Hello -

I have just translated the DE article, as you requested, and tried to integrate the information correctly into the existing article. Since I am not a professional linguist, I hope that I have done this correctly, so that no information has been left out or stated redundantly or whatever. It has not yet been proofread by anyone else and I don't know when that will happen.

When you request a translation, please make sure that you place the template on the translations page after you create it or else it will get lost. I found your request when poking around to find the "lost" requests.

Have fun! Scbarry (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question re: Vandalism

Hey Hugh! Long time since you ushered me into wikipedia! But now I come to you as an Admin. There's a Vandal with 6 complaints now on his talk page from 6 different pages! But he's got no username. It's someone at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.220.211.225 I couldn't really understand the instructions for these issues, so I'm hoping you can do something about him. <shrug> It's a problem... I'm just trying to "get" the editing of pages! (Someone really needs to make the complaint system clearer, IMHO.) Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leah. I'm not an Admin, so I can't do anything about the person you're having a problem with. There's a good, clear page about vandalism and what to do about it: Wikipedia:Vandalism. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

Hello,

Thanks for welcome - I'm new to Wikipedia editing so please bear with me if I make a few mistakes trying to get up to speed. Could you please further explain the "reliable source" idea. Reason I ask: I scanned "reliable source" definition and it seems far too restrictive to allow for any sort of anecdotal evidence. Clearly we want to use reliable sources for the basic info and facts on a page, but if we become so restrictive on each page that no anecdotal evidence or anecdotal links are allowed then we have a very sterile encyclopedia which becomes, by definition of 'lack of flexibilty' much less useful.

Just my $.02 being a newbie with an outside perspective. Would enjoy your thought on this as you seem a very enlightened individual given edits and such so I would value your opinion here...Thanks again! Healthyskeptic77 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Healthyskeptic77. Basically, you're right: the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources guideline is restrictive enough to forbid any anecdotal evidence. You're wrong about the effect, though: it doesn't make the encyclopedia sterile, there's a rich variety of good sources out there. It makes it verifiable: without these rules the encyclopedia would have no claim to be accurate. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for response - and point taken - sources should be verified. What, however, constitutes a verified source? e.g. there is a source listed on a page I tried to edit which I believe to be a very biased, unreliable source. The source is an academic whos focus is Philosophy, yet he is listed as a source to debunk a more scientific topic.

My argument here is that while I tried to add a link to what may also be considered a biased source (and my link was remove - maybe rightly so), shouldn't the other unreliable source - this quote from a retired Philosophy professor which seems wholly inappropriate - also be removed?

Thanks again for willingness to chat on this topic - much appreciated! --Healthyskeptic77 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. You have the wrong end of the stick slightly - it isn't sources that should be verfied; assertions should be verifiable - they should have citations to support them, in order that a reader can go and verify the assertion for themselves if they want to. I could go on at great length about this, but there is a wikipedia page which you need to read which explains all of this better than I would here: Wikipedia:Verifiability.

As to what and who constitutes a reliable source, again wikipedia has an excellent page discussing this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Particularly, the scholarship section of the page is relevant to your questions.

As far as I can tell the link you added didn't match those criteria. The main reason it was removed, though, was that it wasn't placed in the article as a citation to back up a particular assertion, it was just added as a link. The reason the text and citation that you removed were put back was that the citation was to a reliable source that did support the assertion being made. You question the value of the author of the source, Robert Todd Carroll - his field is indeed philosophy rather than science, but the two are not isolated from each other. Dr Carroll has spent more than thirty years as a teacher and author in, among other areas, critical thinking - this is useful in a discussion about Applied Kinesiology, which is criticised for the fact that its underlying science doesn't stand up to a critical analysis. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilium Diagram

The diagram of the pelvic bone has the labels "Illium" on it - and that spelling contradicts with the article Ilium (bone). It should be one "L", no? Bockbockchicken (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know how I missed that before - I've just corrected it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Social Liberalist Party

Continuing from User talk:Voteliberalist#Notability of Social Liberalist Party -

Hi You deleted my article and links to the article on the Social Liberalist Party that was set up in the UK about a month ago. This is a real and valid political Party, so i found it puzzling that you even deleted it from the list of minor political parties in the UK As an encyclopedia, you'd expect wikipedia to be up to date, but in actual fact you've kept it a whole month out of date! I also don't understand why it was so bad to group the party under the title of Social Liberalism in the list of UK parties that hold that ideology, seeing as it really is Social Liberal, and arguably even more so than the Lib-Dems, who have been allowed to keep their place in that list. Don't you think it is also right and proper for a political party, however small to be recognised in notability, simply by its existence and registered presence with the electoral Commission? If the party were to win an election, however small, wikipedia would be shown to be tragically out of date! I even included the Commission's register as proof of existence for the first reference. The article was also clearly objective, and I challenge you to disagree with that! I hope that this is sufficient proof of its notability for you. It was my first article on Wikipedia, and so I accept that I made some errors. As you have deleted it, could you please be kind enough to write the article to replace it? Thankyou, Voteliberalist (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Voteliberalist. Thanks for leaving such a carefully considered comment - it makes writing a clear reply a lot easier. You make several points about your article, which I'll address in turn:

• The party is real: Yup, I accept that - I went and found its entry on the Electoral Commission's website.
• The party is valid: Who am I to say? Wikipedia is about reporting the world as it is. I've got no business deciding whether or not the party is valid.
• Wikipedia should be up to date: Yes, it should.
• The article was objective: No, I don't think it was. The article was written entirely from the party's point of view, by one of its members.
• The key point: any party should be "recognised in notability, simply by its existence and registered presence with the electoral Commission". No, I don't accept that, and neither does wikipedia. The Electoral Commission's criteria for registering a political party is simply that you submit £150, a party constitution, and a statement about financial compliance. Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects that are notable. To quote wikipedia's guideline about the notability of groups and organisations: "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This simply isn't the case. As you say, your party was formed only a month ago - it's received no coverage at all. All of this may change, of course - By the time of the April 2010 elections, when your party is fielding candidates in all 650 seats, having taken the public imagination by storm and had your policy program discussed at length in every national newspaper, etc, the party will clearly be notable, and someone will write an article about it.

As to the entry on the List of political parties in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia's notability criteria apply just as much on that page as on any other. Reading that page probably would have given you a different impression, though - there are plenty of red links and external links on the page which need taking out.

You say this was your first wikipedia article, and you probably made some errors - actually, I thought you did a pretty good job. Your only errors were to write an article about a non-notable entity, where you had a conflict of interest. I encourage you to stay around on wikipedia, and contribute - I'd recommend a new account, though - wikipedia discourages promotional usernames. It also completely forbids usernames used by groups - each username must be used by only one person. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply. I will take your advice into account. I'll now resume my efforts to make the Party as notable as possible!

Anton Howes aka Voteliberalist (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Request for Rollback...

...has been granted. Please remember to only use Rollback for blatant vandalism. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page comments

in reply to this comment on her talk page:

Thank you for educating me about editing others' comments. Totally makes sense despite author errors. Some things just need to stand as they are. There are millions of other errors out there to correct! Cinderelly007 (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)cinderelly007

:) You're welcome. Keep editing. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK Legislation

Hi. I have adopted the TheyWorkForYou link into my proposed revision of {{Infobox UK Legislation}}. This can be found at User:Road Wizard/Sandbox 4 where you can test how the code works. I am a little cautious about how it will work in practice though as the first test I tried (Peerage Act 1963) returned some very poor results. Restricting the field for use only on recent Acts may improve the quality of the search results. This will need further testing before inclusion in a live version of the template. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have identified another flaw with the search, as the Act is not called an Act until after Royal Assent. Therefore a search of Hansard for the Act will not return any debates except by shear chance. An alternative search would be Peerage+Bill (with no mention of year) though in the case of this search the results would be wildly off the mark (mainly pages that happen to mention peerage and bill). I am open to suggestions, but I am doubtful if we can find an acceptable solution. Road Wizard (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation continues at Template Talk:Infobox UK Legislation. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiEducator

Hope you got back Ok from the wikimeet. Check WikiEducator!Harrypotter (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching for use of a source

Hi, we spoke on Sunday about a particular source and you said there was a way of googling wikipedia for websites linked to? ϢereSpielChequers 22:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. No wonder I couldn't understand when you were trying to tell me your username :) I've realised that the exact tactic I was talking about won't work, but a similar one will.

Google lets you specify options in the search bar. If I specify "site:something.com" I only get results from that site. If I specify "link:somthingelse.org" google searches for pages that link to somethingelse.org. You can be as specific or otherwise as you wish - if I don't want to search all of something.com I can search for "site:subsite.something.com", or "site:subsite.something.com/really/specific/part/of/site", and so on. I can also combine the two. Some examples:

• googling for "Hughcharlesparker" searches the whole web, and gives these results

• googling for "Hughcharlesparker site:wikipedia.org" searches wikipedia, and gives these results

• restricting it even further, I can search for "Hughcharlesparker site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User" which gives these results, and shows me where my username crops up on talk pages on the English wikipedia.

• combining "link:" and "site:"; searching for "link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hughcharlesparker site:en.wikipedia.org" should show me pages on the English wikipedia which link to my user page. but it doesn't. I'm guessing that the wikipedia's use of the nofollow tag is the problem, but I could be wrong. Trying to use both tags together does seem to be a bit flaky.

I think the best way to do what you're after is to search for the phrase using the "site:" tag. Googling "jewishvirtuallibrary.org site:en.wikipedia.org" seems to do the job - results. I don't see that this gains you much over just using Special:linksearch, though. If you wanted to search for it in a reference, perhaps searching for "url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org site:en.wikipedia.org" (results) is more what you're after - it returns no results. For comparison, searching for "url=http://news.bbc.co.uk site:en.wikipedia.org" gives a lot of results.

Let me know whether all this is of any use to you. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for that, I searched for this and got reassuringly only 40 hits, one in Hebrew which I don't think needs translating and most of the rest in archives and discussions on user pages about hate sites. But thanks for introducing me to Special:linksearch jewwatch.com comes up 69 times there including some that need checking out.

PS When I came up with WereSpielChequers it didn't occur to me that I'd ever have to say it! ϢereSpielChequers 17:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dolphin Square

Could you please explain why you interfered with the entry for Dolphin Square? The material you removed - and which I am putting back - is part of the story of the Square. Rather than swan around the net interfering with people's entries, why don't you check with those who know first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmar (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy your comment to the talk page of Dolphin Square, and reply there. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Voting is open :-)

A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open over at meta - there's tons of information online over there, and the mailing list has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the meta pages :-)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Vote

Hi you signed up as being interested in being a memeber of wikimedia UK 2.0. Just a reminder the that the vote for the inital board at m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Vote ends next Saturday (September 25th).Geni 03:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

London 14

Hi, I noticed your participation the other Sunday. London 14 is up and running, scheduled for October 12 if you're interested. Best, WilliamH (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock

{{unblock-auto}} - template removed

Are you sure you're actually blocked? You made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_von_Clausewitz&diff=prev&oldid=246718279 this edit 30 minutes after the autoblock was implemented. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can find no blocks on either your username or the IP specified. —Travis^talk 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

80.249.49.105 (talk · contribs) is a shared school IP, so I guess Yasin ali1970 (talk · contribs) is another user on that IP. You were able to edit after the block, so everything seems to be ok. Spellcast (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole of Birmingham's school system accesses the internet from behind a cluster of proxies. I copied and pasted that template straight from the "blocked" message wikipedia gave me. I got round the block by refreshing a few times until I ended up going through a different proxy, and thus a different IP address. I've just got the same message again - screenshot attached. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the autoblock on that IP. It should be ok now. Spellcast (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Hey, are you interested in helping me clear the backlog of trivia from Wikipedia? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah :) I'd been wondering about posting a message on WT:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup suggesting that we pick a week and make a determined assault on the June 2007 category. Until I started trivia cleaning a few weeks back, I hadn't realised how important watching the pages was - I've come across two real WP:OWNership issues - Talk:Dolphin Square#Dolphin Square Tenants' Association and Talk:Vampyr#Trivia. Any hints on dealing with those situations without so much hassle? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hugh, I left him a final civility warning and will take any further uncivil comments from him to ANI. I'm tempted to just close the conversation as completed -- he can go to a noticeboard if he wants to appeal consensus, policies, process, etc. --guyzero | talk 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)