User talk:Keith D/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hessle CARA

Keith. Why did you remove the Hessle Community Action Residents Association links in the external links section of the Hessle article?

Its a community group assisting local people with issues including the recent flooding and is a very helpful resource for people, yet you labelled it as "spam". Why?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkRobHessle (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The links were removed as they fail on several counts of the section Links normally to be avoided of WP:EL.

Keith D 11:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Keith. I can understand why the forum link was deleted as its excluded under rule 10 of links to be avoided. However i do not understand why rule was used as justification for deleting the general website link? Hessle Community Action is a residents group which is run by residents and follows residents wishes via a voting procedure and has a full consituation as well as been supported by Alan Johnson MP. I beleive therefore that it is relevant to the towns page.

Also why was any of the links labeled as "spam"? HCARA is a regonised organisation and I object to the idea that we were "spamming" anybody.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkRobHessle (talk • contribs) 09:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the 2 sites were substantially the same thing. The idea of external links is to give more information about the subject of the article and not to promote groups that are based in the location. For example if the site gave a detailed history of Hessle or the features of the town then that link would normally be OK.

The spam in the summary line is just a quick way of indicating that the links were not acceptable. The summary line is just that a quick summary so people can note what has happened. It was not an attack on the sites.

Keith D 08:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

KC Stadium: Ready to nominate for Good Article?

Hello Keith, hope you enjoyed your hols. I worked on the KC Stadium article a bit today. I am ready to try for GA if you are. Have you done this before? I'm sure I can research it and do it, but if you're more familiar with the process, feel free. Cheers.  Doonhamer | Banter  20:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Had a good break, but all good things come to an end. This will be the first GA nomination I have done but will give it a go, I think it takes about a week to get someone to assess it. Hopefully they will not find too many problems with it! Thanks for all the work you have put in, like the interior photo you mannaged to get.

Keith D 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That was easy - it is in the list - just have to wait and see what happens. Keith D 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good! I look forward to the result; seems a good collaborative effort on a worthy topic. :o) My concern is the large number of sources from the official stadium website. It really does seem the best source of information, but the stricture on "third-party" (unrelated) sources might blight the effort. I guess we'll see. Thanks though, whatever the outcome, I learned a few things about style and the Wikipedia process working with you on this. :o)  Doonhamer | Banter  22:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Marske

You'll have to fix incoming links! Computerjoe's talk 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Done those that are obvious which one is meant. Left rest for someone who knows the subject matter to determine which article to point to. Keith D 21:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Humberbr

What do you reckon about this user? --Rrburke^(talk) 13:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they are just disruptive edits - heading for a ban from what I have seen of the POV on articles. Keith D 14:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wakefield Trivia section POV removal

Hi Keith D. I see you removed my "gorgeous" adjective from the page. As the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, wouldn't you agree that, for example, Jennifer Connelly or Salma Hayek or similiar are "attractive", "gorgeous" etc, and that this is information about them which is pertinent ? As opposed to Joan Hackett, Kathy Bates, Judi Dench or other "character" actresses ? Somebody who'd never seen a picture of the person in question is informed of this fact by the use of these informative adjectives. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but in reality, poll after poll of public opinion shows one can objectively state "This person is attractive". Secondly is there a guide for beginning Editors to "The Rules" of Wikipedia ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.139.96 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The word falls into the category of the words to avoid see WP:PEACOCK. For information on the rules for structure, layout etc see the Manual of Style and linked documents. See also welcome message at top of this page for other links which may be useful.

Keith D 09:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

assumption

was that the uk project and any of its subsidiary projects could do with a bit of tagging SatuSuro 12:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - for information I am working on the Yorkshire project tagging at the moment. Keith D 12:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It just gets to me to see how many articles I randomly checked in the UK and english project area havent been tagged at all - either articles or categories SatuSuro 12:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A gripe of mine is people rating articles above a stub and not leaving any comments as to what they think needs doing. If they have rated it then they must know what needs doing to move it forward. But then that is another can of worms. Keith D 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Leeds Country Way

Thanks for the copyediting: I hadn't realised there were redirects in place for all major roads, so that's particularly useful. I realise that it's probably too early to try for GA as the article can't be claimed to be "stable", but thought I'd give it a whirl! PamD 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to nominate early as it can take up to a couple of weeks to get through the review process - as I found out with the KC Stadium review. But it can take as little as 20 minutes as it did for 1 article that I spotted while watching the page.

Good to see that some articles are moving forward - I have come across far to many stubs tagging/rating the Yorkshire articles and have only done East so far, North is now in progress.

Thanks for all the work put in. Keith D 10:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		To Keith D, for your tireless work creating, editing and improving Wikipedia's coverage of Britain. Snowman 13:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Keith D

I despair, I really do

Well hello there Keith, once again, thank you for your tireless efforts removing petty vandalism on Hall Cross School's page. Wikipedia is public-edited, and as such, I tend to think of you as the police, dealing with those idiotic vandals :) Well thats all, thanks again,

Mrjingjing 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I was wondering about the Ofsted report comments as I could not find any reference for it and the Ofsted link on the page appears to be incorrect. I did locate a report and was going to put it in but have not got round to it as yet. Keith D 15:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticedthat. The link at the bottom of the page appears to be the actual report itself, whereas the number you posted is for the same report, but a different section Mrjingjing 11:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also changed the link at the bottom as the original one pointed to something unrelated to the school but I could not work out what it was for, possibly a nursery attached to the school. Keith D 13:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How odd, there is no nursery attached to the school, it is a secondary school. I guess that mystery will remain unsolved Mrjingjing 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

York

Thanks for your support, and I've added a link to the main article to the lead. Mattythewhite 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hull and syphilis

Keith, I've been working on sourcing the history section of the Hull article, and I'm up to a section that might be putting undue weight on syphilis. Even if the weight is not undue, I'm not sure that this source is reliable, as it's simply an essay with no author and no sources of its own listed (I'm also suspicious of the "powered by Wikipedia" notice at the bottom of the page). What do you think? Should this material remain? Thanks. Doonhamer 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

May be it should remain but the source looks like it could be questioned. I have had a look round and found similar material by the Independent newspaper which could be used as a more reliable source. Take a look at [1] to see if that could be used instead. Keith D 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, definitely a better quality source. I'll use that, but I believe I'm going to trim down the discussion a bit. I do believe too much emphasis is given to it in the article on Hull; currently, about 14% of the history section by word count is about the syphilis issue. I'd think it's better suited to the syphilis article (which I've not yet checked, I must admit), with perhaps a passing mention in the Hull article. Doonhamer 20:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A trim would be best as we are staying in the one article and not doing a subsidiary article on the History of Hull at the moment. Keith D 20:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reading, the new source advanced a theory a bit different from the first. I ended up editing the syphilis article a bit too to incorporate the new source there. That article also covers the original theory. I ended up only citing the link you provided and its theory as it's a far better source than the first; let the reader follow the wiklink to the syphilis article to see the whole debate in better detail. Doonhamer 21:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kings College

Thank you for yoru tireless work in clearing up the elaborate vandalism to the Kings College of the Arts and Technology page and reverting it to an accurate version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.222.242 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Warwickshire-school-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

North Yorkshire/Yorkshire-geo-stubs

Hi, I agree to remove the geo-stubs from the area, towns & villages that are now in Lancashire following previous administrative county boundary changes. Having read a bit about Wiki policy on this, it seems that the consensus was to follow whatever the current Govt changes are and what the maps of the day print. Although I can't help thinking that the vote concerning this policy was skewed by those of a younger online generation that have been fed a diet of post-1974 geography (me actually being one of them). I will endeavour to update the relevant text in the articles and add categories like "History of Yorkshire (which is already listed in one article) etc instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernpeak (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I was going to suggest that you seek a wider consensus on that matter. I am just following what is the policy, I would probably go for pre 1974 counties as that is what I was brought up with, never liked the Humberside we slipped into for a short while! Keith D 18:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the Category:History of Yorkshire. Keith D 19:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Seaside FM

Thanks Keith, its all a bit beyond me if i'm honest!! The station launched yesterday and has gone on air with a different name. Hullonian 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mary Shelley

Hi Keith D,

I used the parenthetical in text citation of (Bartlett) thinking it would help the flow but after seeing that you kept the reference it seems better. Thanks for your quality help. I used the site:[2]. Daytrivia 15:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again just wanted you to look at reference links 2, 3, & 4 Mary Shelley the web page offers "Table of Contents for this work" but the link takes one to wikipedia not to contents. Also noticed is that the long quotes referred to seem to be in the author's introduction not the preface. Daytrivia 16:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the {{cite web}} template with a {{Cite book}} template and given some more detail in the reference. Unsure why the link from the page got back to the article but things appear to work with the URL I have put in. The quotes are from the Introduction text but looks like this was written by someone else. Keith D 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The House Always Wins

and thus the Norrington Table is *bound* to be wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.120.144 (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are going to have to explain that one it makes no sense to me. Keith D 20:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Keith D, I deleted the original thatcher image because i disagreed with it {black & white) to replace it with a more suitable. Upon realising the jpg was copyrighted and thus unable to upload, i left the article. I cannot replace the original thatcher because i dont know it's name. (Willieboyisaloser 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for letting me know - I spotted the image had gone and restored it back. If you can locate a better free image then you are welcome to upload it. Keith D 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (Willieboyisaloser 14:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

A660

Keith - you got there before I'd finished (I was going to give it a WPYorks template, of course!). You might like to look again - I reckon it's no longer a stub. PamD 13:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - for letting me know, I spotted it from a change to the road list article. Looks like it could be a start now - but that means I will have to add some comments!! Struggling to get things tagged and rated as I appear to be the only one doing any rating. Decided to only tag an article if I rate it now so we do not get swamped with articles to rate. Keith D 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Spotted you had used the convert template in article - not sure about the use of that one, a bot has been running round recently removing it indicating that it was a bloated template. Though there is no note on the template or its talk page. Keith D 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirkdale Cave

This has moved on from "stub" - you might like to reassess? (I followed a link from Yorkshire Museum and got a bit carried away...) PamD 14:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left it as a stub for the moment - certainly better than before. I have left a couple of thoughts on the comments page but cannot think of what else can be said about it. I have added the caves wikiproject tag on to it as they may have some input. Keith D 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded for your tireless efforts to remove nonsense and vandalism from British settlement articles! -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Keith D 12:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also thanks for the East Riding of Yorkshire map that has appeared in the infoboxes recently. Keith D

No problem - if there are any issues with the map, or you feel an article could be improved with a different map do please let me know. There are just 15 counties of England left to map out now for the infobox!

On the award - pretty much every time I check a settlement's edit history I see your name as a vandalism reverter! Great to know we still have some guardians out there! You really earned the award. Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kenilworth Article

Hi Keith D,

I am curious as to why you regard my attempts to inform others of interesting local trivia in the 'Modern Kenilworth' portion of the article as test editing or vandalism. If citation is needed to stop my edits being removed, I will gladly provide it, although I am unsure of the kind of citation that would suffice in this particular case.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colloids quass (talk • contribs) 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason for removing as vandalism is that the entry appears to be a list of non-notable people with no assertion of why they should be mentioned. If you think that the people are notable then provide citation as to how they are notable or create articles for them that pass the notability criteria for entry in the wiki. See WP:BIO for criteria for people. Keith D 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Geography of Harrogate

Hi, I've seen your efforts at improving North Yorkshire related articles, and I was wondering what you think of Category:Geography of Harrogate, most of the things in there have been just taken out of Geography of North Yorks. The same guy (DShamen)has been nicking things out of other categories and putting them into Category:Harrogate. What do you think? RegardsKing of the North East (T/C) 23:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He is also emptying Category:Buildings and structures in North Yorkshire into Category:Buildings and structures in Harrogate and Category:Visitor attractions in North Yorkshire into Category:Visitor attractions in Harrogate. I'm really not sure that stuff like Ripon Cathedral belongs in Category:Visitor attractions in Harrogate its just confusing. King of the North East (T/C) 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsure on this one but seems you have to have some knowledge of the area to navigate round the category tree and looks a bit of overkill. What do other counties do for their settlements?

Just for info the same user has been doing similar in West Yorkshire with Leeds, Bradford etc. and its driving me crazy trying to tag articles as I keep hitting the same articles as they have changed category since I last looked. Keith D 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Think this is going over the top as it is making things much more difficult to locate and making lots of categories with few articles in them. Keith D 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should ask him to desist? A lot of his edits seem to be doing more harm than good to the category structure. I mean surely visitor attractions in Harrogate should only apply to things in the town of Harrogate, not everything within an undefined proximity of Harrogate, and the same for the other categories he's filling. King of the North East (T/C) 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Would be a good idea to drop him a note and to set up a discussion about the categorisation before we end-up too far down the road. Keith D 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on his userpage and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire, King of the North East (T/C) 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comet Group after sales service

You removed my original comment as you said that it was too personal, would the following be acceptable ?

However some people still experience poor after sales service from Comet. See the link below "Don't Buy from Comet" for more details.

(The link is already on the page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.146.78 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could include that comment but would need to find a current citation as the link you quote is 2005 so cannot be used to substantiate something that happened this year. Keith D 18:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The date on the top of the link is when the page was started - there are multiple entries from 2006 and 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan of Enfield (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But they are only user added comments and are thus discounted under WP:RS as anyone can write anything there and are in no way reliable. Keith D 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yorkshire places

Hi Keith: As you'll have spotted, I spent some time today adding GENUKI ext links to all the places listed in the "Leeds environs" category, and a few other places which were in the same ancient parishes. When I noticed a page wasn't already tagged with WPYorks, I added the template to the talk page, but I probably missed some as that wasn't my focus. I suppose there must be a way to list all articles which are within Yorkshire hierarchies of categories but not yet tagged for WPY? I was a bit surprised to find so many not tagged, though a lot of them, perhaps most, are pretty basic stubs. PamD 22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I had spotted the newly tagged articles as the BOT has just run to update the statistics. I was trying to assess as I tagged, rather than tag all then have a large number to assess which I found was rather depressing. Currently I have tagged the East Riding of Yorkshire & most of the North Yorkshire articles with a few in West & South Yorkshire. I think you can get a bot to go round tagging articles, but better to at least cast an eye over them and fix up a few basic things as you tag & assess them. I think the main problem of tagging is the movement of articles between categories, which has been happening a lot recently, and that causes articles to be missed or wastes time looking at an article you have already visited.

Just for information I have not been tagging railway stations, schools or people articles on this pass as there are too many of them and are covered by other projects.

I was thinking that the CAT scan tool could be used when we have got most of the articles tagged to pick up the missed ones. Though I do not know if it looks at talk pages to get templates so may not be usable. If it does not operate on talk page templates then will have to investigate how the tagging bot does it. Keith D 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

West Felton

I apologise for my useless contribution. 86.142.64.63 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor Swldxer

I've left a message on his talk page thanking him for his contribution and encouraging him to read the Hull article's talk page for the good article discussion and encouraging him to provide reliable sources for the material he's added, with pointers to the RS, OR, citing RS, citation template, and MoS pages, and asking him to respond on his talk page, my talk page, or the article talk page. Doonhamer 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I reverted their edits as they had just added links to each of the pubs mentioned which made it become a directory. Would be good if we can get some other editors to contribute as it seems like a 2 man band at the moment. Even the original person who ask about GA status has not contributed any thing. Keith D 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's very true, and I've not been able to contribute as much as I want to lately, but today should be another good day to give it a go. I saw your reversion of his first edit on the pub links and agree with that. He's since made what appears to be a good faith attempt to expand the section, but he's not adding any sources. I hope the note on his talk page helps prompt him to do so; the last thing we need is more material that needs citation. Maybe he'll get the hang of it and help us out with the rest of the article too. Hope springs eternal... Doonhamer 14:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I had not spotted the more recent edits but they look OK, its going to be a difficult section to write & source. Keith D 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

West Bradford

You are right; I came across the dab page doing short page patrolling and it was red link central, so I tried to create something rather than just have a dab among redlinks. So, grabbing my Ekwall a source from 1964 - found one in West Riding Yorkshire. Alas, it went to Lancashire in 1974. So I'll do a little clean up but please check to see if I've got it right. Good catch! Carlossuarez46 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that, I will have a look at it some time when I get back to tag it as it should probably come under the History of Yorkshire category now. Keith D 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I'd like to nominate you as an admin, as I think you're qualified. Let me know if you're interested. Epbr123 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What would this involve? Keith D 15:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd set up your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and you'd then have to answer various questions and address any concerns users may have. Epbr123 15:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I will have a look at that. I will be away next week so not a good time to have ask. Give me a prod when I am back and I will have a think about it. Keith D 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just a quick note to say the offer's still open if you're ready. Epbr123 14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not know if I know enough about all of the policies but from the side of helping out with vandalism then I think I would give it a go. Thanks for the vote of confidence, will have to see what other people think. Keith D 14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it!! Wikipedia needs level headed people like you!!!--Harkey Lodger 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

i just like to know why would you put a welcome message on my talk page would i've been edit this thing for about 2 years now..

was it meant for someone else.

Nez202 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, your user page indicated that you are new around here and the blank talk page with only removes of image messages looked at first glance as you were newish. Sorry if I offended you looks like I got it wrong but then we all make mistakes. Keith D 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

no i was not upset just thought you might have meant it for someone else

Nez202 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Scarborough and Ryedale Mountain Rescue Team

Keith D, can you please stop changing the entry on the Scarborough and Ryedale Mountain Rescue Team. The web-site you have used for the current version is incorrect and has been written from a biased point of view within the team As you live many miles away from the team you cannot understand from just reading the web-site what the team really does. I represent a large number of ex-team members who would like to see a correct and onset entry about the team appear in this site. Unless we can work together and produce a neutral entry based on my evidence and you knowledge of Wikipedia then the whole entry should be deleted. As an example of the incorrect reporting that appears on the web-site, I shall quote a recent example. On the 15th November the team quoted that they were called to search in the vicinity of Throxenby Mere for a lady believed to be at risk after having been reported missing from home the previous day. The lady was found and transported to Scarborough Hospital via the RAF Seaking helicopter. The truth is that the coastguard team were tasked after being requested by the Police to search for a missing 70 year old female who had not been seen since the previous day. The team initially searched from the Sea Life Centre to Coffee pot corner including the Open Air Theatre and Peasholm Park. After new information was received a missing persons profile was able to be carried out and the team moved their search to Inland to Raincliffe Woods. The casualty was located in the woods and was found to have low levels of consciousness and hypothermia. The casualty was airlifted from the woods by Rescue Helicopter 128 and taken to Hospital. The team stood down at 1100 hrs after searching for 6 1/2 hours. This is from the following web-site http://www.scarboroughcoastguard.co.uk/Incidents.htm

I can quote many other incidents reported by the team, in which the rescue or search was done by others. Sdsrt 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edits you made as they removed all of the wikification from the page and the work of other editors from the article. Apart from that I have had little actual input into the content, all I have done is the basic adding of categories and minor wikification. As you rightly point out I have no personal knowledge of the organisation but am just keeping an eye on all Yorkshire articles to ensure they are being improved and not vandalised.

If you wish to correct the article then you are free to improve it but you must be aware of the potential conflict of interest that edits you make to the article may have, see WP:COI for details. Please try to improve the article and maintain its structure from a neutral point of view, as I feel that it is something that is worthy of an article. All of the editors involved have to work together to produce an article that is worthy of a place here, hopefully we can all work to that end.Keith D 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the incidents list, as I dispute the content of this list. As you can see from the example above they have listed an incident in which another organisation carried out the search and rescue. Therefore the incident list can not be trusted and I feel that it should not be referenced. Sdsrt 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I think that it is best not to use the reference as it is disputed, but to find other more reliable references to support the article. Keith D (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Comment

Hi Keith D. Just a note, but I mean what I said at your RfA. Assuming it passes I'd be happy to help in any areas you're unsure about with the tools. With your excellent experience in other areas there shouldn't be a problem for you. I'm from Hampshire so we're in the same time zone. Best of luck! Pedro :  Chat  13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the offer. We all have to start as the new boy on the block at some point and assistance would be appreciated certainly in the early days. Keith D (talk)

You're welcome. Let me know. I certainly hope the RfA passes. Best. Pedro :  Chat  14:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackrock page

Hi Keith,

I visited the page after an vandal edit had been made and removed an external link that was irrelevant to the content of the article. If you check my hisotry you'll see that I've edited this article constructively in the past and discussed these changes with other editors. I checked the version to which you refer, somehow those vandal edits were attributed to me. I did not make them, and don't know how I was signed to them. If you have any idea how this might happen please let me know! AleXd (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see the link you intended to remove but what ever you did reintroduced the vandalism from 147.252.234.153 that I had removed. Unsure what actions you have taken as I cannot come up with any thing that would have achieved that action. My best though was that you were comparing selected versions then did an undo which just removed the latest version rather than the set. Keith D 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, some have found the practice exercises at the new admin school useful. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Best wishes, WjBscribe 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Offer stands if you need any help. Pedro :  Chat  23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I will be taking things slowly, mop & bucket on order! Keith D (talk)

Congratulations! PamD (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff. Well done!--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Snowman (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks!

For reverting the vandalism on my user page. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem - looks like the block button in a minute. Keith D (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5