User talk:Henrygb

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Add a new section


Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

snoyes 01:58, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Voting systems

Hi Henrygb, it's great to see you here! I just wanted to let you know about List of voting systems topics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting Systems. You'd probably be qualified to contribute to these! Also, in the Maltese and N. Ireland STV elections, was the non-proportionality caused by small districts? DanKeshet

I don't know all the reasons, but it looks as if Malta has a two party system where both parties have almost equal support, so the rounding associated with having STV constituencies at all makes this quite possible. In Northern Ireland in 1998, one cause may have been more small Unionist parties and a greater tendancy to transfer votes on the Unionist side than on the Nationalist side. --Henrygb
It was also caused by differential turnout - higher in the more Nationalist West, lowest in the strongly Unionist Belfast suburbs. Your analysis of Malta is spot on. Gerry Lynch 17:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Greenland Dock

Henry, you've modified Greenland Dock to say that it's one of only a few surviving docks on the south bank of the Thames. What are the others? -- ChrisO 10:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

South Dock (south of Greenland Dock) is clearly one [1]. Surrey Water and Canada Water are also survivors as bodies of water with dock walls, though they cannot be accessed by boat. --Henrygb 12:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good point re South Dock - and considering that I live on the dockside I should have realised that myself (doh!). I'm reluctant to consider Surrey or Canada Water as being docks, though, as they are purely ornamental ponds - clearly a major change of use. By that token, you could call Norway Dock a dock on the basis that it still has water in it. Greenland and South Dock are the only south bank docks which can still be used as docks. -- ChrisO 12:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Please don't use so MANY capital letters. "Analysis of Variance", with an incorrectly capitalized "V", is a redirect page, as it should be. Michael Hardy 18:35, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Be grateful I didn't write ANalysis Of VAriance (ANOVA) --Henrygb 00:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
OK. Another point. You just linked to dispersion, which is a disambiguation page. What would have been appropriate is either [[statistical dispersion]] or [[statistical dispersion | dispersion]]. You should always check your links to see if they point to something appropriate. Notice, for example, that "dispersion" of light is dealt with in optics and is not at all the same thing. Michael Hardy 22:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Why the funny "nbsp" character you keep introducing into articles, as you just did in Bayes' theorem? Apparently it just produces a blank space. Is it in some way preferable to a simple plain-text blank space? Michael Hardy 22:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It produces a nON-bREAKING spACE, which can be useful for two things:
  1. putting more  than   one    space     between      words
  2. ensuring that equations written in text do not break across lines while having spaces inside them; I prefer f(y|x) = L(x|y) either to f(y|x)=L(x|y) or to f(y|x) =
--Henrygb 22:16, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

move Danzig

see User talk:Angela for other half of conversation

Sorry, I can't move it as there doesn't seem to be consensus on Talk:Danzig for this to happen. Angela. 22:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is any history at Danzig (disambiguation) that needs to be merged. The first revision of that was a cut and paste from Danzig in the first place and all later edits were reverts or minor changes, so I believe that can stay as a redirect. Angela. 22:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It turns out that it wasn't frozen, but simply had the problem of two pages having a history (of little interest), so couldn't be "moved". Henrygb

Please stop profanating Polish cities

May I ask you to stop profanating the Polish city of Gdansk. The German name of Danzig was used by the Nazis, and this is still thought to be a profanation to use it today. Thank you. PolishPoliticians 22:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please stop profanating Polish cities with these Nazi stuff. The full name are essencial. I don't see why you remove them from the header of the Gdansk article, without any discussion. PolishPoliticians 23:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This just shows your POV position. You cannot even get consensus in the Polish Wikipedia to call it The Royal Polish City of Gdansk in the introduction (and I thought that Poland no longer had a monarchy - so it is hardly essential at the top). On the other hand Danzig is important to the casual visitor as the starting point of World War II, and was the name used in English for centuries before 1945 - the Nazis did not invent it. The article was unblocked on the understanding that it would be clear to the casual reader in the introduction that Gdansk and the former Danzig were the same city. Your lack of understanding of this point suggests to me you would be wise to refrain from editing the English version of Wikipedia while you calm down and reflect. You might also consider the three revert rule. --Henrygb 23:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't think you are right in this case. The German names of Polish cities are insulting to Polish people (beacause of WWII casualties, etc.) and I don't see why the full name like The Kashubian Capital City of Gdańsk should be erase by you in this article: Please be informed that other Polish cities have also such names like The Royal Capital City of Cracow and The Capital City of Poznan PolishPoliticians 23:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  1. Saying that the city now called Gdansk in English used to be called Danzig in English should not be insulting to anybody - if you find it insulting, you might consider stopping reading any history in English. I accept people died in World War II; that too is part of history, and so is the former city name Danzig.
  2. I didn't erase your long names from the article, just from the introduction where they are a distraction and not apparently accepted by anyone else. They remain elsewhere in the article, whether they are in fact still the names or not.
  3. Excessively long historical names are not needed in the introduction when they prevent more useful information being there. I note that the name is not obviously used by the Gdansk city council [2] [3]. I take your point about Cracow being known as a royal city: I don't speak Polish, but the nearest I got to finding the Gdansk site talking about a royal city was at [4], but it seemed only to be talking about Cracow and not Gdansk.
  4. I suggest you deal with this on the correct talk page and stop writing here. I see that have put something on Talk:Gdansk. Your Nazi comment seems to have been rejected. We will see what happens to your Royal/Capital comment, though I think it will confuse readers if they think Poland has several capitals.
--Henrygb 01:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Henrygb is right. I am an English person and studied History at both GCSE (High school) A-Level and University level, and Danzig has ALWAYS been referred to by that name in history books and by my various tutors and teachers, I'd never heard of Gdansk until searching for this article. Xzamuel 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (additional note - I meant to put this on the talk page for the city and not your personal talk, sorry about that!)


Your comments on Box-Muller transform prompt this comment. Notice the difference in appearance between this:

and this:

And, as with \sin and \cos, so also with \log and \det and \max and \exp and \sup, etc. Michael Hardy 23:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[5] was even worse! Morwen - Talk 21:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Drapers' arms

I've no idea why it was originally stored here as a .png-- the .jpg is so much smaller. I'm guessing someone wrote to the Drapers and asked for a copy and they sent their lossless version. Marnanel 01:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Naming wars

Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Norman language

You wrote Info merged from Anglo-Norman language since all language links come here just as I was in the middle of disambiguating the links. (No harm done, just thought you'd like to know.) Gdr 19:39, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I was not prepared to go through changing so many links, but if you are that is fine by me. --Henrygb 21:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There were only about 20, and some of them weren't links to the language but to the people so didn't need to be changed. Gdr 23:24, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

States of Malaysia

Hi henrygb. I'm just wondering whether you might like to comment on Talk:States_of_Malaysia regarding the official states names. -- sabre23t 03:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Canada goose image

Hi. It appears you uploaded Image:CanadaGoslingRotherhithe.jpg but did not provide any information on its copyright status. I have marked it as unknown for now. If want to release it under GFDL or public domain, please mention this on the image description page. Thanks. RedWolf 05:44, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

The image description page says "personal photograph" which I think is enough of a source. Apart from that, my text and image contributions (unless otherwise stated) are covered by Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations, i.e. GFDL by default. I see no need to go any further than checking the box in the upload process. --Henrygb 14:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Statistics lead section

I've proposed a new lead section for the Statistics article. See Talk:Statistics#My attempt at article lead section and my comment immediately above that one. Comments welcome. - dcljr 19:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Slashes in wiki-links

Thanks for fixing the slashes in list of Khoisan languages and [language]. --Merovingian[[Image:Atombomb.gif|]]Talk 23:15, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)


Apologies for that slip. Bah! I knew I would make it on one of the pages (going from editing hundreds of RoI town articles to some NI ones!). Quite a serious mistake to make! Thanks for fixing it! zoney talk 11:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Football World Cup 2006 - North, Central American and Caribbean Qualification Groups

Hi there - noted your comment on this page - I really dont think it's matter of merging this with the main front page ; the main World Cup 2006 page should be reserved for the Finals. I reckon the current Football World Cup 2006 page just needs to be tidied up to reflect the fact that I have put up the match lists for all the qualifying confederations - I'll be in a position to do it in the next day or so. -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 15:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vedic Mathematics

Hello Henry, I see that you are the source of misinformation in this section. You should not believe everything you read on the internet as their are strong political reason for some to descredit every Indian accomplishent as a form of "Hindu Nationalism."

Not all Vedic and Sanskrit literature is of a theistic nature. The reason for this fallacy is that the interest of westerners towards an "exotic" culture has always been towards the "spiritual" and the "occult." This ignores a large part of ancient Indian history.

What many have failed to notice is that mathematics played a large part in the ancient Indian culture. Panini's Sanskrit grammar texts are based on the principles of algebra and what we would today call semiotics. Aryabatta and Charvaka were examples of two ancient philosophers who emphasised that this material world is the only world and that we should only believe that which we can observe and analyze. A term given to this thought is called Lokayatra or "layman" school which is entirely materialistic.

Mathematical formulas are in the Vedas for the building of architecture and the designing of Yantras which are very complex. The verses are also mathematical based so they can be memorized. A logic system called Nyaya - literaly "not this" - encourages doubt and skeptism. It is an analyitic system based on logic, proof and observation in much the same way as the scientific method is in the west.

Vedic mathematics is quite well known many south Indians of the previous generation as they had a much more complete text of the Arthaveda in Tamil. Written Tamil carved into wood slabs is much older than written Sanskrit texts though the later is usually credited as the source. This is where much of what is called Vedic mathematics originated from.

It has been questioned if the Arthaveda - along with maybe 11 other lesser known Vedas - are actually part of the original Vedas. This is mostly due to the translations into local dialects being the only known or existing source, yet this does not question the age in which these works were made nor that they were indegous to India as they all were.

Thank you for pointing out the POV edits to Vedic mathematics [6]. I have reverted it. The issue is whether the following questions are legitimate for the article:
  1. Did Shri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji state he based "Vedic mathematics" on an appendix of Atharvaveda, rather than Atharvaveda itself?
  2. Does this appendix exist now or did he lose it?
  3. Is there any evidence that this appendix existed before the 20th century?
  4. Are the contents of "Vedic mathematics" consistent with the known mathematics of ancient India?
  5. Are the contents of "Vedic mathematics" consistent with "Vedic science", i.e. are they a philosophy or are they a set of mental arithmetic shortcuts which work in a few cases?
  6. Is "Vedic mathematics" being promoted by those often described as "Hindu nationalists"?
  7. Are there serious critics of "Vedic mathematics", and if so, should they be mentioned in the article?
--Henrygb 22:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would sign up except that I have a fear that this can turn out to be a time drain on my allready busy life. But one fallacy has all ready put your article under suspect and that is the questioning of decimal fractions.

I should know this because I studied some of the passages in the Vedas concerning architecture. The western method of deviding a circle is in degrees where 360 measures the full continuum. This was derived from the ancient Greeks. India had an independent method of measuring a circle which was to have the full continuum measure 1. This meant that the angles would be broken into decimal fractions as apposed to degrees. It was introduced into modern mathematics in the west as radions and is not widely used. The division of circles and angles was very important in the designing of yantras and the building of architecture for the ancient Hindus. So to say that the decimal system did not exist in Indian mathematics already discredits your article by showing that a thorough and rigorous attitude has not been used even in your elementary research that would give you the authority to write on this topic.

Those of my comments you object to have been quotes of critics. You seem to be saying that ancient Indian mathematicians measured angles as a fraction of a circle. That implies neither radians nor decimal fractions. If you look at the article on Decimal#Decimal_writers, you will see that it says
  • "c. 598–670 Brahmagupta – decimal integers, negative integers, and zero"
  • "c. 920–980 Abu'l Hasan Ahmad ibn Ibrahim Al-Uqlidisi – first direct treatment of decimal fractions"
So to be clear, this is not an attempt to put European mathematics first. Are you saying that this is wrong and that the Vedas, more than a thousand years before the latter of these dates, used decimal fractions directly? That would be news indeed and well worth clarifying. "Vedic mathematics" does deal with decimal fractions directly: see Vedic_mathematics#Method_1:_using_multiplications for an example. --Henrygb 23:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An inequality on location and scale parameters

Hello. In consequence of your editing, the "displayed" TeX is no longer indented (as by a colon, as follows):

Also, the two lines are closer together than they would be if separated by a blank line, as above. I am not adept with tables, or I would have adjusted these matters. Can you help? Thanks. Michael Hardy 22:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks for the invitation, but as you will see above on the Canada goose image section above, I think the project may be a diversion. --Henrygb 12:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 15:07, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yet another opinion on math typesetting style

In non-TeX mathematical notation, variables should be italicized but parentheses and digits should not. Also, some spacing sometimes helps legibility.

The above is the summary to my recent edit to devil's staircase. Somewhere there's some sort of style manual on math notation style on Wikipedia; I'll look around. Michael Hardy 22:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Michael, I know you mean well, but when I wrote f(x) rather than f(x) I was copying the existing article; the difference is minimal. The article was using the former style a year ago when you last changed edited it three times. I usually don't mind when you change formatting, but with respect I am afraid that sometimes I find your preaching a little grating. --Henrygb 23:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading the image

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 01:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was self-drawn based on a number of sources. But as a general issue, see my comment above on the Canada Goose image. --Henrygb 22:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History of France

Why did you change the articles relating to the French Third Republic. It is an extremely nineteenth century notion to divide a nation's history by what government is in place, and any modern history text rejects this view. - SimonP 22:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see a logical difference between a historical division called French Third Republic and one called France under the Third Republic or indeed France in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. I had been confused when reading Second French Empire and earlier articles listed in Template:History of France not be taken to French Third Republic so I merged the articles. --Henrygb 22:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Hello. You don't seem to be an administrator but I think you ought to be. I will nominate you if you wish. You may reply here or on my talk page as you like. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 15:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Terrific. I have posted your nomination. Please accept at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Henrygb. I'm sure you will be a very capable adminstrator. I would like for you to have administrator privileges so that you can use them when you judge the situation calls for it. Good luck on the vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I'd like to upload Image:Floor.png to commons: for use in other Wikimedia projects. The license tag says GFDL but there's no info on the author. Is it yours? --Glimz 21:28, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes - I drew it. In fact the history of the article [7] says so for 19 Mar 2004 --Henrygb 23:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ogmore River

I have posted the following against the Ogmore River article. As you started this one off I thought it prudent to also post this here. Would welcome your input
Ogmore River v. River Ogmore

All the other Rivers in Wales are designated by River Name. I would suggest that this Article by moved to River Ogmore and Ogmore River be used as the redirect. Is thatOK ?
Velela 22:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection - I was probably following an existing red link. But I note that "Ogmore River" is marginally more common on Google than "River Ogmore". --Henrygb 23:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 00:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

A Doomsday question

Hi Henry. I've put a question to you at Talk:Doomsday_argument, but I thought you may not see it, so here I am, pointing it out. --Noetica 06:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be grateful if you would visit the page again, as I have replied there. (Have you got it watchlisted?) --Noetica 13:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your last reply, but I have a further question. Please look again, if you can find the time. --Noetica 21:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again... --Noetica 01:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet again... (But I'll assume from now on that it's watchlisted.) --Noetica 03:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damn! It was only a comment on an apostrophe... (:| --Noetica 00:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Primrose League.jpg

Your picture at Image:Primrose League.jpg is really impressive. Where did it come from? --Audiovideo 23:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I inherited a collection of badges dating from 1885 to 1895, so thought a picture (with a bit of compression) might help illustrate the article. I'm glad you like them. --Henrygb 23:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's hope you have more treasures hidden away. BTW, I read the link on your user page. As far as I can see the arguments against you being an admin didn't hold water. It is not as if Wikipedia has a surplus of admins and a lack of tasks. Next time I suggest you show a bit of keenness and argue with the idiotic negative comments. Then you can just go back to continuing the good work. --Audiovideo 23:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I am all for changing the title of the article. I may have been ignorant in my naming of the article and it is a simple mistake on my part. People are right now discussing changing it. I would like to ask for a reconsideration on your part to change your vote to "keep". Thanks.WHEELER 18:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

South Africa FA

Hello, thank you so much for pointing out the copy vios on the South Africa article. It was horribly embarassing to me. I have completely rewritten these sections and they are no longer copywrite violations. I look forward to hearing your updated opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Africa/archive1. Páll 23:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting Race denial to Validity of human races

Thanks a bunch for finding that article. I wasn't particularly looking forward to the discussion on the original one. 00:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I object to you referring to my link additions as spam. There is no intention to spam. These sites are important and genealogy should be included on each state page. Cribbswh 21:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Do you think the various articles you are creating such as Adequately wet etc. will ever amount to more than dictionary defition stubs. I would just hope you could consider the issue before you move onto the Bs. --Henrygb 01:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you think I shouldn't include such topics, or should I try including them in relevant articles instead? (unless there is a decent amount to write about the topic). --brian0918™ 01:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Happy to discuss here, because I only have one small screen. I don't think some of them will ever expand, but I would have no objection to "adequately wet" being mentioned on the asbestos page for example. So I would suggest either inserting them into other articles or grouping them together by topic. --Henrygb 01:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Image talk:Bernabeu.jpg#Copyright.

Absolute poverty and relative poverty

I made some edits to these articles and their talk pages which may clarify my thinking. -- Beland 05:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elona Bojaxhi

Hiya.. thanks for pointing that out, I have deleted the temp page as a recreation of a VFD-deleted article. —Stormie 03:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


Why are you putting Northumbria in wherever you fin North East England? It is not the official name, and to the extent it has a geographical or historical meaning, it also includes much of Yorkshire. --Henrygb 15:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am putting Northumbria wherever North East England is because today it is a common name for the region especially since Northumbrian culture as it is called is to be promoted more actively throughout the region. Are you sure that that name includes much of Yorkshire? As far as I know it is only used for the NE. Also, why did you remove the table I added to the article? That certainly wasn't my POV. There were encyclopaedic facts on the region. REX 20:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Northumbria can mean many things: anywhere in England north of the Humber; the Humber to the River Forth (so SE Scotland as well); the River Tees to the Tweed, perhaps plus Berwick; the River Tyne to the Tweed, perhaps plus Berwick (i.e. the old Northumberland) and perhaps plus Gateshead, South Tyneside and Sunderland (e.g. the area of Northumbria Police). Many people in County Durham would reject the idea of being in Northumbria. But if you think Middlesbrough or Redcar (ex-Yorkshire) are in Northumbria then it would be quite difficult to say Whitby was not, and I would say Hull as well. As for the box - it was about North East England and belongs on the North East England page. I added two extra links to North East England near the top of the Northumbria page, but the two are not equivalent. --Henrygb 22:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Drapers' Company

Thanks for pointing me to the information about two kings of Norway being members of the Company. I've translated the article now, at no:Worshipful Company of Drapers. I did look at it earlier, but only read the first paragraph as I felt I wasn't quite prepared to dive into the livery companies at the time. Cnyborg 09:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some quick questions, since you welcomed me!

Hello Henrygb,

I've just made a comment to yours on the Jaynes prior probability question ("prior probabilities"). But I note that some things did not come out as I expected...

Namely, I can't figure out how to get the UTC date and time of my comment to appear.

Also, my identifier comes out in red...I am presuming that this is an invitation for me to create a page for myself, but I don't want to do this unless it is appropriate. (I am presuming that this page is the sort of thing needed)

Thanks, Bill Jefferys Billjefferys

I assume you found out what to do as you blanked your question, but for the record:

  • Put what you want on your user page - what you have done is fine. Comment to others on a talk page (yours, theirs, an article talk page, wherever).
  • ~~~ produces your name: Henrygb
  • ~~~~ produces your name and date: Henrygb 20:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ~~~~~ produces the date: 20:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • the penultimate icon above the edit box makes --~~~~ which may make signing comments quicker (sign comments on talk pages, but not contributions to articles) --Henrygb 20:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Henry, I did find it after some effort; and thanks for your interest and assistance.

I have in mind to add to the prior probability page and to create one on admissible decision rules, which seems to be sitting in limbo.--Billjefferys 20:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion

I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicit photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles 04:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re:RfA thanks

Sorry, I guess my clock was slow, only by ten minutes... Zzyzx11 02:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. If I can make admin, then you definately deserve it! Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. Good luck as an admin! Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 05:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Welcome aboard! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations, and just to let you know I am the David Boothroyd who posts to uk.p.e. Dbiv 22:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Henry, congrats on your RFA. I am sure you will continue to be a great asset to Wikipedia, as you always have been. All the best, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ValueFirst Messaging

Even if it's an employee that copies the text, shouldn't there be some indication that the company is permitting the release of the text under GFDL? Not that it matters so much in this case, since it doesn't look likely to survive VfD. But, as a matter of principle, I'm not sure that employees automatically have the right to GFDL their companies' text. Anyway, congratulations on becoming an admin! FreplySpang (talk) 21:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Value of Coins

Just curious -- what criteria of speedy deletion did that talk page fail to meet? There's no associated article, it's a pointless comment, it looks like a user test, and it adds no value to anything. —chris.lawson (talk) 03:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. What happened was that I initially blanked the page to remove the useless comment, then I realised "Maybe this would be better deleted" and then I found the speedy deletion page :) Chalk that somewhat confusing series of events up to a first-time experience with page deletion. —chris.lawson (talk) 17:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deliberate spelling mistake on Henrygb user page?

Hello Henrygb, I noticed that the last line on your user page is:

"Remeber [sic] to sign comments on talk pages, but not contributions to articles..."

Since this is a small thing I would have changed it on your user page (especially because you are advising others to copy it to theirs) but I wasn't sure if this was intentional, or if it is considered rude to modify another Wikipedian's user page. Wragge 13:47, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

It was not intentional - thank you for spotting it. You have to judge how someone will react to changes to their user page. I would not have minded. --Henrygb 13:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Illustrators

The reason for them is this I found an illustrator's guild aunnal best-of book from the 70's and I wrote down the names of some of the one's the liked and looked for more info. Well, there were ones like Ralph Steadman, Ronald Searle, and Holly Hobbie whom we all know about. Now, I know about Bernie Fuchs and Philip Castle thanks to their expansion! (from User:Hailey C. Shannon 01:14, 15 Apr 2005)

Phantom Regiment

Why did you revert? Shouldn't the deletion decision apply to this redirect as well? --Fbriere 21:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There were no pointers in the page history to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phantom Regiment Drum and Bugle Corps. But there was enough before the redirect to justify a stub or a disambiguation page. Looking at 10,000 hits at [8] suggests that the simple phrase cannot be described as not-notable. Just an opinion. --Henrygb 23:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I submitted Phantom Regiment Drum and Bugle Corps for undeletion, since Phantom Regiment should actually be a redirect. (And there may be something useful in the deleted history.) Good eye. --Fbriere 17:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thanks a lot! Live and learn.... -JMBell° 11:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


The article was victim to a page-move vandal, and I was trying to delete the redirect in order to move it back. However, due to server slowness, I kept getting error messages, which I thought indicated that the attempt had failed; in the meantime someone beat me to it and moved the real article back to where it belongs. The article still ended up deleted, despite the error messages, and though I tried many times to restore it, it timed out every time. I requested on IRC that someone restore it (and User:Kingturtle did; see [9]), and it seems to be all fixed now.

I don't know what you mean when you say "keep being restored" - it's not as though I kept deleting it; you'll notice that my three deletes all occurred half an hour before the four restores. — Dan | Talk 11:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving back the various Brisbane railway station entries. Cheers, Slac speak up! 01:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

A Thank You!!!

Having never really had occasion to, I had never reviewed the deletion log before; however, upon reviewing it to see if the templates I had marked for speedy deletion had been deleted, I came to appreciate the hard work you and others do. So Thank you for your efforts and the time you put into keeping Wikipedia functioning Trodel 21:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Another thankyou

Thanks for reverting my userpage. Due to a server error, i couldn't see what was vandalized, but it seems that i unwittingly started an edit war. Thanks for the help. --Happyfeet10 14:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Borough seat

Your additions to the article Borough seat would make an excellent addition to the article Borough, allowing Borough seat to be a disambiguation page. I have had a difficult time attempting to merge your portion of Borough seat into the appropriate sections of Borough. I thought you might do a better job. -Acjelen 17:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Peloponnese Vote

Hi, I agree with your antique post (15 Sept., 2004) regarding Peloponnesos v. Peloponnese. I'd like to initiate a vote on moving it, but I've never done such a thing before. Can you help? --Jpbrenna 00:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves --Henrygb 22:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate Tournament of Champions template

I reverted your edit to the "List of Contestants" template, because I'm using it as a temporary page while I convert the tables into WikiTable format. I'll redirect it once I get the entire set of tables converted, but for now, I'd prefer it stay the way it is (besides, I doubt anyone would go to the "List of Contestants" page anyway, since it's not linked from anywhere anymore). I appreciate the initiative in redirecting it, though. ral315 22:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. I went there when I was trying to stop a bunch of subpages with histories being speedy deleted. --Henrygb 22:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Jeopardy UToC

Thanks - I didn't think about the GFDL issues. However, I don't think we have copyright issues and the need to cover ourselves regarding the historical edits. The pages in question are reporting facts that are not be subject to copyright law. This is similar to the reasons that scores of professional sports can't be copyrighted or that the phone book phone numbers can't be copyrighted. Let me know if you agree and I will remark them for speedy. Trödel|talk 00:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be factual. Having the subpages as redirects causes no harm and preserves the history; I think it is necessary for GFDL purposes. Read Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion especially points 1 and 7 of the reasons for not deleting redirects. In any case, you you use that page rather than speedy deletes of redirects. --Henrygb 13:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep them then. Just to clarify, when I said they are "reporting facts that are not subject to copyright law" I didn't meant to imply that all facts are not copyrightable. Certain statistical information and other lists are not subject to copyright - like a list of IP addresses, or phone numbers, or sports statistics - there is a copyright in the presentation, and in certain computed information like the college rankings that take stats and weight them in a unique way, but not in the underlying data. Trödel|talk 14:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Pastry fork.jpg

Since this is labeled as a personal photo, I've gone ahead and marked it with the {{GFDL}} tag (based on above comments). If this is not your intent, please change the copyright tag accordingly. --Alan Au 06:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Anonymous users aren't forbidden from voting, but their votes get discounted if made in bad faith (e.g. sockpuppetry, or an account created after the deletion debate started). But that isn't really the issue - the debate is more important than the votes. As Lupo and Mark pointed out, this template is misleading because it doesn't reflect how German copyright law actually works. As such, there is no guarantee that any of the images tagged as such are in fact Public Domain. Legal ramifications are very important to the Wiki. If an image ends up untagged in this way, it may turn out that we shouldn't be using it in the first place. HTH! Radiant_>|< 12:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have permanently protected this template. You might note that it has been marked for deletion [10]. --Henrygb 10:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Quadell protected it. See the log. dbenbenn | talk 14:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I do believe that this is all done in good faith - however, copyright is one of the few areas where Wikipedia needs to be exceedingly careful. If we don't know for certain that the images are public domain, then we must not use those images. As you state, we don't know who the copyright holder is, and we don't know whether this law applies to those images. That does not mean we can safely assume there is no copyright holder, nor that the law does not apply. We must therefore err on the side of caution. By the way I've brought the matter to the attention of WP:CP and WP:IFD, who should know more about it. Radiant_>|< 14:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected the template. Note, though, that there seems to be no consensus for deletion at this time. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • The resident copyright experts are looking into it. In the meantime please avoid using the template if possible. Radiant_>|< 21:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • The template has been examined, and replaced by more suitable ones such as {{no source}}; most images seem usable as 'fair use'. As of now, it's no longer needed, and it has been confusing some people in the past. Thus, there are two possibilities. The first is to reword it to actually reflect German copyright law. The second is deletion. I'd like to hear if you could do the former (but it would probably require a lawyer's touch); if not, I'm going to do the latter, as a misworded legal template is hazardous. Radiant_>|< 08:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll leave that discussion to you and Psyschim. We have Template:Fairuse, which is probably appropriate (but I believe the pictures should be examined briefly before slapping on fairuse, just in case). Radiant_>|< 10:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I don't see how my edit makes it harder to find the book. Could you please explain? Fnorp 10:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll stay away from the references. Fnorp 06:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Former flag Bosnia.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Former flag Bosnia.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 7 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

Return of the STV article

I'm determined to get the Single Transferable Vote article up to featured status. I've begun making some heavy edits again - you've reviewed my work before, so please take a stab. Thanks! Scott Ritchie 12:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Malta Labour Party

Hello! When you change the name for the subject of an article in the text, could you move the article too? Otherwise, as in this case, the title and the article don't match. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I was slowly leading up to that to see if I would get a response, first in the talk page, then in the article, and finally a page move. You shot my fox on the third, for which thanks. --Henrygb 16:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
That's OK; I've fixed all the double redirects, though there are quite a few ordinary redirects which could probably do with bein up-dated at some point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thai naming styles

There's a discussion of the proper titles for articles on Thai royalty starting in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles), and as you'd expressed an opinion on one of the individual articles being moved around, you might want to add your $0.02. Choess 04:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Vichy France

Why did you revert the Vichy France page? 66.2

Because the change [11] was a "see also" redlink to something that does not appear on the internet [12]. --Henrygb 16:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


I have requested moving Lyon to Lyons; the actual editors seem to be confused and looking for a policy. We may even preserve Leghorn. Come and discuss. Septentrionalis 22:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your Statement Concerning Scottish Barony


Your statement concerning Scottish Baronage: " Scottish baronies and by extension their holders are not notable" To say the Scottish Baronies are not notable, is an insult to the History of Scotland to say the least. It clearly show your lack of historical knowledge especially Scottish History here are a few quote that could maybe improve your lack of knowledge of the importance the Scottish Baronies held in the history of Scotland:

1- That the Baronage of Scotland is an 'order', 'estate' (of the Scots' Realm) and a 'Rank': See Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, "The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland," (27th Oct 1945) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. 79, pp. 111 at 113, 116, fn. 1, 146, 150

2- Statement in Lyon Court documents that minor barons are officially the 'equivalent to the chiefs of Baronial Houses on the Continent of Europe': See Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, "The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland," (27th Oct 1945) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. 79, pp. 111 at p. 143, fn. 3, 155. See Wauchop of Niddrie, Lyon Register, Vol XXXV, p. 31, 19th April 1945; Matriculation of Chisholm of Chisholm, Lyon Register 33/12: 30th March 1944; Matriculation of Borthwick of Borthwick, Lyon Register 35/14;

3- Statement in Lyon Court documents that minor barons constitute a 'titled nobility' and that the estate of the Baronage are of the ancient feudal nobility of Scotland: See See 26th February 1943, Register of Genealogies, Vol IV, p 26; Thomas Innes of Learney, "The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland," Proc. of Soc. of Antiquaries of Scotland, (27th October 1945) Vol 79, P. 111 at p. 143, fn. 3, 154. See Petition of Sir Hugh Vere Huntly Duff Munro-Lucas-Tooth, 1965 S.L.T. (Lyon Ct.) 2 at p. 13;

4- The Lyon Court has issued a official pronouncement that the feudal or minor Baronage of Scotland constitute a ‘titled nobility’, as Sir Thomas declares in “The Robes of the Baronage of Scotland”, ibid., p. 143 in fn. 3, as follows:

“Edinburgh, 26th February 1943. The Lord Lyon King of Arms having considered the foregoing (in a birthbrief, the preparation whereof was then duly ‘authorised’, being the Signature for such writ ). ‘Further, with regard to the words ‘untitled nobility’ employed in certain recent birthbrieves in relation to the Minor Baronage of Scotland, Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and have been both in this nobiliary Court and in the Court of Session recognised as a “titled nobility” and that the estait of the Baronage (i.e. Barones Minores) are of the ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland’ (Reg. Of Gen., vol. IV. P. 26).” (Emphasis supplied.)

As you see, Sir your statement is very historically wrong. Scottish Barons are indeed part of the nobility of Scotland, that may not conform to your think, but Wikepedia is about history and Scottish Barony are part of the history of Scotland.--The Baron of Fulwood 01:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion this proves nothing. When "Scottish Baronies" were associated with land ownership, and could sell their holdings, they were no more notable than land-ownership anywhere else in the world. Now not even that property holding has meaning, so they are not notable at all. --Henrygb 15:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Specificity 2

I feel that there is an error in "Specificity" term:

You write that: "For a test to determine who has a certain disease, a specificity of 100% means that all people labeled as sick are actually sick."

But I feel that "For a test to determine who has a certain disease, a specificity of 100% means that all people labeled as NOT sick are actually NOT sick."

Of course, it depens on what we mean by "negative" test result. negative == NOT sick positive == sick or ?

I did not actually write what you quote. User:Pgan002 did [13]. If you do not like what an article says, feel free to change it. And on talk pages, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~. --Henrygb 14:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Since you have participated in "Use English" talks, please visit Talk:Ekaterina Dolgorukova to contribute to the current poll. 06:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Danny boy

Perhaps it would be more informative for some hard information as to why the composer of the lyrics wrote them. I thought the information was useful but when you reverted the information only stating "remove nonsense reasons for the story behind this song" I was bothered that you did not improve the article. If you know why the composer wrote the lyrics please include them in the article. BCV 18:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well thank you, I learn something new everyday. Good research thanks BCV 23:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleting redirects

Thanks for the tip Henry, won't make that mistake again. Martin 22:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought

This may not satisfy all of your needs, but if you don't show some support, we're not likely to get even this much. — Xiongtalk* 10:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

UK templates

Thanks for fixing all those templates. How were you able to do so without using administrator privileges, though? Since we can't move pages to already-existing pages, and since using the move function automatically creates a redirect, I thought moves were un-revertable except by somebody with the power to delete, who could delete A (or, if it had content, move it to a better address and then delete the redirect left behind) and then move B back to A where it belongs. Doops | talk 22:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Where there has only been one edit and that is a redirect to the old article title, you do not need to delete the redirect before a move. See Moving_over_a_redirect. --Henrygb 23:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Help - a Day in the Life

Naming conventions override the typography used by publishers, record companies, etc. For example, more than half of the CDs and books on my shelves have their titles and authors in all capitals, but that's not how we give them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree; nor do I care. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) seems to suggest either Help - A Day In The Life or Help - a day in the life while you have made an arbitrary choice. --Henrygb 21:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Puritan state churches

Hi, you wrote the following:

  • "The Puritans, early settlers to the United States, emigrated from Britain in order to worship in accord with their conscience, free from the oppressive and coercive power of the state religion. Some then created state churches to their liking in the the colonies."

I'm interested to know more about this. Will you describe just what you're talking about, or, show me where I can read about it? Thanks Beanluc 19:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Established_church#Former_state_churches_in_British_North_America gives three examples of Puritan state churches. Read also about Roger Williams (theologian) who started Rhode Island for those Puritans who disagreed with the Massachusetts theocrats.--Henrygb 21:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you calling me NUTS?


You might want to include a bit of blurb at the top of the category page with a link to NUTS. --GraemeL (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Done --Henrygb 22:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I figured it would be quicker to ask you than for me to read enough about it to write something meaningful. --GraemeL (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

moving request

hello there Henrygb,

you helped move an article Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco once. A vandal named Arrigo unfortunately reverted that move, but since I do not have administrator powers, I cannot revert that move. Could you help out please? I reinserted the renaming tag again to help with your navigation. thanks alot.. Gryffindor 21:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Swell, thanks alot. However the talk page [14] I could not move. Is that a problem, or is that redirect in that case in order? Gryffindor 09:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC) ps: That same user did the same thing on this page Princess Lalla Hasna of Morocco, could you help me out please?

Henry the Navigator

An article that you've edited before (Henry the Navigator) is nominated for Biography Collaboration of the Week. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 20:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet another clear example of Two different pages saying two different things

You may not like it but the fact is that the weather in London is frequently used as an example of a blank and deleted page, and has been since 2001. See for example meta:MediaWiki User's Guide: Setting preferences. An irony, given that you undeleted it, is that it is also in the guidance at Wikipedia:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages_by_sysops. By the way, it is considered impolite to delete parts of other people's talk comments when you could just add your own. [15].--Henrygb 10:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the weather in London . I'm going through right now and trying to replace it with the weather in and for a few miles around London. See WP:VPR#End the edit war once and for all: Stop using noun phrases for red link examples. SeahenNeonMerlin 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No - it does not look like a potential article subject. Nobody has thought of writing The weather in Paris article. The only people who create content there are (a) vandals or (b) well-meaning but misguided editors who are trying to solve a non-problem. Given its history, you really should aim for consensus before changing everything. --Henrygb 11:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:PP: Protected against article re-creation All articles listed here should be marked with Template:deletedpage and protected. Remove and archive pages accordingly.

I was merely following established procedure. GAAAH I wish procedure wouldnt contradict itself all the time. Sorry  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 15:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Completely without announcement, an article was moved from its common English name Nidhogg to the old Norse version Níðhöggr, even though a proposal to move mythology articles to non-English spellings failed to gain consensus. You have expressed interest in simular page moves in the past. Please take a minute to look at this one. CDThieme 18:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Cookies vs medical test example in Bayes' theorem

Hello. You have edited Bayes' theorem in the past. There is at present an edit conflict in Bayes' theorem concerning examples. Shall we have an example about cookies or an example about a medical test? I wonder if you care to weigh in on this question. If not, no problem. Please respond, if you choose to do so, at talk:Bayes' theorem. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 18:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Football World Cup move

As a regular contributor to football articles you may wish to vote at talk:Football World Cup Jooler 10:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.
-- Roger Dangerfield 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This was part of a wider campaign of similar vandalism by Roger Dangerfield, deleted here and elsewhere by Mindspillage. --Henrygb 00:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

London/Derry Council

Hi, not sure why you reverted my edit of Londonderry Council to Derry Council, as Derry Council actually has an article? The link you reverted to doesn't work and mine did. Shimbo 12:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Edit: OK, just seen your reasoning on the talk page - fair enough.Shimbo 12:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As you see, I felt that we should use the pre-1984 name of the council for something happening in the 1970s. But the edit history raises doubts about the pre-1984 name: see [Talk:Derry City Council].--Henrygb 18:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures tagged GermanGov

Hi there, over at WP:DRV you complained about myself tagging those images that were previously tagged {{GermanGov}} as {{nolicense}} in bad faith since I did not notify the uploaders. [16] I thought I had caught all of them. I also notice that you are merely complaining when you could have notified the guys that I had missed.

The mistagged images are now listed at WP:PUI, where they will stay listed for 14 days; that should be more than enough to source and tag them properly. Meanwhile, no information is lost.

One of your gripes is that Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg, which presumably appeared on a German propaganda leaflet dropped during the Battle of Britain, was in fact "published in the UK rather than Germany, inconsistently with UK copyright laws". This sounds doubtful. The argument that it was published in Germany (where one does not need to assert copyright) holds at least equal force.

Image copyright and overuse of the "fair use" doctrine is a serious problem on English language Wikipedia. People are inordinately attached to the mislicensed pictures that they uploaded and indiscriminately attack anyone who attempts to tackle the problem. THIS ATTITUDE HAS TO STOP! Pilatus 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My view is that at a minimum procedures should be followed. What is seems to be happening is that a small group of editors is trying to bounce a decision through in a couple of days. I only checked two images you had tagged, and you had not notified either uploader. The onus is on you when you do something which may lead to deletion.
The position is actually less clear than you suggest. This page was once tagged with "According to the Urheberrechtsgesetz (copyright laws) of Germany, photographs are copyrighted for 50 years after their first publication and then enter the public domain. Copyright on a photograph not published within 50 years after it was taken also expires by that time. See §72(3)." A link to that section in English is [17] and in German [18] which seem to say 50 years for photographs, suggesting that pre-1955 photos are now PD. Now it may be that German law is too complicated for that to mean what it seems to say, but the point is at least arguable, and therefore there should be enough time to argue it out. --Henrygb 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

enforcement acts

Hey, check out the enforcement acts talk page. I think some incorrect info is on those pages. Thanks--Urthogie 20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not edit the Enforcement acts page then? I am not an expert, though it looks as if the issues are related. --Henrygb 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
well i'm not an expert either. I'll put this on my todo list.--Urthogie 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hypoxanthine.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Hypoxanthine.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It says "handdrawn" which meant (believe it or not) that I drew it using Paint or PaintShopPro and uploaded it, ticking the appropriate box at the time (March 2005). See the initial line of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations (the rather rude template you use seems to be out of date on the name of that page) for the terms under which it was uploaded. See the sections in this page on "Canada Goose", "The Humungous Image Tagging Project" and "Unverified image" for my thoughts on this institutionalised vandalism where people slam in some deletionist tags and templates and then delete images rather than engaging brains, which would enable you to put the GFDL template on the image page yourself. --Henrygb 00:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


We are standardising on "A-ndash-B theorem", for the reason that it parses as two people, A and B, rather than one person A-B. Therefore it does carry extra information, and this convention is known to copyeditors (if not always followed in self-typed papers). Charles Matthews 08:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We? Some of us are tring to use standard keyboard characters in article titles for the benefit of typists, URLs and search engines --Henrygb 09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A-B as a redirect does that, though. I would always create A-B first, then move to A-ndash-B. In Ryll-Nardzewski fixed point theorem it really should carry the information to readers that Ryll-Nardzewski is a person, not two: how many of them are going to know that? If you feel this is a major point, then I suppose it is time the Mathematics WikiProject had a full-dress discussion on it. Charles Matthews 15:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for catching my mistake in listing this for db. Not sure what I was thinking. Regards, Accurizer 13:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hart & Huntington Tattoo Company

While I was cleaning up this article you replaced it with a redirect. I have put a cleaned up version of the article back up and replaced the redirect. While close, I think that this company could be notable enough to have an article. If you know of something else that could be added, that would help. Don't know how this will wind up in the future but it does appear to be worth some effort to see if an acceptable article can be written. Vegaswikian 00:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It was marked prod or speedy delete, and I doubt it is notable enough, but I don't really care. --Henrygb 00:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nascent and Nascence

Hi Henrygb. I saw that you converted the redirects that I had listed for speedy deletions into redirects to Birth, which makes sense. I just wanted to make sure that it was OK for me to have listed those for speedy deletion--my reason (that the redirects were no longer relevant) was valid, right? Or should I have done something differently? ~MDD4696 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You were correct that the old redirects were no longer useful. Strictly you should have gone to WP:RFD if you wanted them deleted. --Henrygb 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:United States President George W. Bush speech to Congress on September 20 2001

Clearly there are problems there that need to be addressed in some way. Шизомби 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for changing my user page to v3. It was really appreciated. Lcarsdata Talk | E-mail | My Contribs 06:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Henrygb 08:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Radical integers

You seem to be the person who added the note about radical integers to algebraic integer. I have listed radical integer for deletion because it was sourced only to MathWorld and looked to me like one of Weisstein's idiosyncracies. If you can attest the term please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical integer. --Trovatore 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no memory of this edit [19]. And I don't really care. But it seems to be an interesting fact. --Henrygb 08:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi there Henrygb! I would be grateful if you could help me watch out for (talk). He is like no other vandals. He messes with Wikipedia by moving pages - just see how he cleverly moves Drive-through to Drive-thru (even the talk pages!):

Hot dog stand to Hotdog stand:

Yoghurt to Joghourt:

Centimetre to Metre:

I tried my best to assume good faith and asked him to discuss page moves beforehand. But then I saw the edit summary of this edit and I realised he was simply a selfish loser who would like everything to be the way he wanted, which is not very far from being a vandal on Wikipedia.
I find him to be way more harmful than usual vandals due to the fact that his edits are not easily detected (since he changes all the redirects as well) and this would result in serious confusion (e.g. a user failed to revert ALL of his many redirects to "Drive-thru", two virtually identical articles resulted - the original "Drive-through" and the copied "Drive-thru"). He also showed his stubbornness and stupidity by insisting on his move even when his edits were reasonably reverted:

It is also a complete waste of time to clean up all his mess. (I am all tired and pissed right now.)
Therefore I hope that you could watch out for him and, in case he does this kind of nonsense again, block him hopefully. Thanks... (sigh) 03:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Req move Ecclesall Road (Sheffield) to Ecclesall Road

Hi, thanks for participating to the article Ecclesall Road. the redirect you have edited in is the opposite that was requested. If there are no objections, the article currently named Ecclesall Road (Sheffield) should be move to Ecclesall Road with a redirect on Ecclesall Road (Sheffield) pointing to Ecclesall Road, rather than the opposite. Cheers, Captain scarlet 11:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But having deleted the page history, you can now do the move yourself. --Henrygb 14:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Aaaah, well I've buggered that one up... Could you do it again please ? Captain scarlet 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for you help, cheers, Captain scarlet 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kitty Ussher MP.jpg

Please see your Commons talk page regarding this image. commons:User:pfctdayelise 01:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Writers by genre

If you don't believe a category is warranted then instead of just emptying it you should nominate it for deletion at WP:CFD. --JeffW 02:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Would you be interested to respond to [20]? And fyi, as demonstrated by [21], "Hong Kong Government" or "Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" refers only to the executive branch of government. — Instantnood 13:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Say, this page is getting pretty long, ya? Maybe you should archive it. Chris53516 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that - but I prefer it in one place, even if it is long. --Henrygb 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging of AMS and MMP

Hey Henrygb, another user has proposed merging AMS and MMP (not the same as last time however). Your input would be useful at Talk:Mixed member proportional representation#Proposed merger. --Midnighttonight 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Affiliate Trade Statistics

Hello. You edited foreign affiliate trade statistics, and deleted a number of categories. You don't know anything about this topic - how could you possible re-define the categories. istia 02:02, 7 July 2006

In fact I know quite a lot about the subject. And I also know about Wikipedia. I deleted 11 excessive categories[22] from the stub. The one I left Category:International trade seems to have been removed since. --Henrygb 09:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for presuming. Where did you learn about FATS? Are you a retired BEA statistician? The term FATS was only coined in 1999, as a part of an OECD working gorup - though the UN has been working with them since the 1990s (called them transnational corporation data) and the US BEA has been tracking them for decades (called them operations data of multinational corporations abroad - or operations data of foreign affiliates in the United States). Usually no one knows about FATS unless they've worked for the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the OECD or the UN FDI group in Geneva. My experience stems from the latter. As for your recommendation about categories - you've severely limited the linkages that this new topic has to relevant categories - and I'd beg you to reconsider. Even if you have a PhD in economics, if you haven't been following these meetings, you aren't up to date. FATS actually do fall into quite a few differing categories, including mergers and acquisitions, if you are familiar with the determinants of FDI statistics (a topic which isn't yet addressed even in advanced university economics courses). And they fall into international economics, and msot the others that I'ed entered, including international trade (I didn't make that edit).
At the moment I am supposed to running a team covering experts in international trade statistics, Balance of Payments, and FDI detailed statistics. --Henrygb 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Social Choice and Individual Values

Dear Henrygb: Thx for your interest in the above. You call the use of *s there "abuse." The intent was to indicate a nesting of defined terms with each term feeding into the next. That, I hope, would aid the reader confronted by a slew of definitions and thus be useful. Would you object to reverting your edit? If so, why? BW. Thomasmeeks 16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[23] just looks weird. And I don't thing you can claim "Commodities" depends on "Voters" (instead of "things that voters might want" you could reverse the order and have "people who care about commodities"). Going down a list achieves the same thing of later points depending on earlier ones, without the bullets changing shape and shading and then not changing. --Henrygb 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thx [for] your explanation. "Commodities" as defined do depend on "voters" by definition. No agents, no commodities. (The term can be broken down into goods and services. Both are relative to wants, not self-standing entities independent of wants.) Reversing terms would put the chicken before the egg in defining a term with an undefined term.

I don't say that indentions are necessary, but I do believe that they are helpful, b/c (unusually) the terms are nested & are better, I believe, so indicated. Prospectivley they are a heads-up as to what to expect. Any reader who gets stuck on one term can more easily see how far she has to go back without necessarily going back to the beginning or gettng lost in the slew. Indention breaks terms into more digestible bites. To me, weird (in a pejorative sense) is as weird does. By that standard, I don't tbink it's weird. But if it is useful, maybe it's a good kind of weird. Would you consider reverting your edit? -- Thomasmeeks 19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No - but this is Wikipedia. You are of course free to do so if you wish (so long as you don't do it too much). --Henrygb 01:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. (Wiki has worked amazingly well so far.) I'll clarify 'commodities' as including "goods" and "services." BW, Thomasmeeks 09:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The weather in London

Although it is true that the recreation of the weather in London was not discussed on its own talk page, it was discussed elsewhere: at what is now Wikipedia talk:Choosing intentional red links. I have eliminated uses of it as an example of a red link (including on the help page at Meta), and that discussion page explains why the community that has spoken up so far believes we should stop using red link examples that look like potential article subjects. (For my reasoning, see the project page.) Your deletion went without, if not against, consensus. SeahenNeonMerlin 14:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You have caused an unnecessary edit war and acted contrary to existing policy. You cannot claim a consensus after less than a day; nor should you make such dramatic changes before getting them agreed. The weather in London was not a problem before you thought you had a solution. --Henrygb 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


hey, i need some help deleting this article: Amy Zidian. It failed an AFD, and has been reposted two or three times by the original author. And my speedy templates keep on getting removed. Thanks!JianLi 23:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:SI prefixes

Hello. I saw you deleted {{SI prefixes}}, with the reasoning that it was a duplicate of itself; I'm not sure if you meant something else, or if you were trying to delete another page instead of this template, but since I couldn't find anywhere where a deletion discussion of this template was held, I've undeleted it. If you did want to delete this page, then tell me on my talk page. Titoxd(?!?) 00:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How odd. I thought I was deleting SI_prefixes/table but clearly something went wrong. Thanks for restoring the template. --Henrygb 10:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

your deletion of diphallic terata

i had noticed your deletion with the comment of "nonsense". Since I know no way of checking what content this article had (it was likely very stub-like) I am assuming you deleted it because the idea seemed preposterous to you. However, this condition does exist, and is sourced at the article Diphallia, i have recreated the page as a redirect to Diphallia and hope that if you choose to delete that page, you AfD it first. -Zappernapper 05:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it because of content such as "In an unusual twist, Hoosloo's Diphallic terata is combined with an additional rare condition called Grösstecitis. While struggling with his multiple penises, Hoosloo also has to deal with the debilitating Grösstecitis, which causes his brain to shrink gradually to the dimension of a nut whil his testicles grow in the same pace. In this biologically unusual process, his organism redistributes cerebral substance to the lower part of his body and converts it into testicle substance redistrubtio cerebri testiculatis." --Henrygb 23:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Birmingham Civic Society

Many thanks on your restoring The Birmingham Civic Society to its original condition. Oosoom Talk to me 14:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of references for Metrified English unit

There is a discussion on the Metrified English unit Talk page which points out that there's nothing to back the article up. Is the article's mention of William Huskisson's Royal System just phantasy? Do you know of anything to back the article up? Should the article be split/merged/deleted as suggested on the Talk page? - Kittybrewster 09:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about this article. --Henrygb 10:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical reference to City of Derry/Londonderry

Hi, sorry to drop this message onto your page but I'm trying to invoke a discussion on the WP:IMOS page as to what to use for the historical references to the city of Derry/Londonderry. I am trying to obtain a non-POV neutral discussion over what terminology to use for this or whether the IMOS as it stands should indeed cover this. Since you have been involved in discussions over Derry or County Londonderry and the likes in the past I thought you may like to get involved in the discussion. See the appropriate talk to get involved. Thank you for your time. Ben W Bell talk 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

why does Approval voting satisfy IIA?

Dear Sir, Can you help clarify why the following [found on the current wiki entry for Independence of irrelevant alternatives] is true?

"Approval voting and range voting satisfy the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion, largely because they are cardinal rather than ordinal voting systems and votes for one candidate do not restrict votes for another."

I respectfully suggest either a proof or citation would be in order here.

I raise the point because IIA (as usually stated, for example Austin-Smith and Banks 2000 or Ray 1973) is tested by comparing different preferences profiles. Under Approval voting, it is not clear at all (to me) how preferences are mapped into actions, which the voting system actually aggregates. Are you aware of an IIA for aggregating actions (it seems Gibbard decisiveness comes closest to this.. perhaps) ? Or a citation/ reference for Approval voting satisfying IIA?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The problem you face is that if you base your analysis solely on ordinal preference profiles then approval and range voting do not count as deterministic voting systems since there is no obvious way to translate an ordinal preferences profiles into an approval or range vote (Arrow felt this strongly). But approval and range voting clearly are deterministic voting systems (Wikipedia uses approval voting) in any unbiased analysis since (barring ties) counting the votes a second time will produce the same result. And it is reasonable to test them against a meaningful definition of IIA. Assuming individual voters apply IIA individually - they change neither their order of preference nor degree of preference for "relevant" candidates when others are introduced or withdrawn from the count - then it is obvious that the counting methods based on approval and range voting will not change the relative results for relevant candidates. See section 7 of [24]. [] identifies approval voting as satisfying IIA without supporting it --Henrygb 21:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Have you considered of archiving your talk page? =p __earth (Talk) 10:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes (see above), but then I decided against it. --Henrygb 12:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have existed

Hi Henrygb. You recently removed the speedy deletion tag from User:MagmaBoy, saying the user "seems to have existed". I couldn't find any contributions by this user (no Special:Contributions link in the toolbox), nothing in the log, nothing at Special:Listusers, nothing on Google, or anyone similarly named. To save me wasting time with a MFD, could you indicate what influenced your decision. Please reply here, if you are inclined to reply. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be right - I was sure I saw something but may have been looking at Special:Contributions/Iswatch19. Thanks. Gone now. --Henrygb 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you when you call the google scholar list research - indeed, few of them even claim to be papers on baraminology, instead mentioning it in passing. Adam Cuerden talk 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Rani Mukherjee

Hi Henry, regarding the edit history on the Rani Mukherjee page, you really shouldn't have put up another redirect as the edit history was probably deleted by Administrators in accordance with the move request and to facilitate the page move. I'll have to look into addressing this topic on the relevant noticeboard. ekantiK talk 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You wanted to move the article at Rani Mukerji to Rani Mukherjee but could not because of the edit history at Rani Mukherjee. So I fixed that [25] and put a note at Talk:Rani Mukerji [26]. The single redirect I put in would have allowed you to do the move. If you had simply done "Move this page" you could have done the move you wanted. Instead you started editing Rani Mukherjee making it impossible to do the move without further intervention; if you want my help again, you could try adapting your tone. --Henrygb 15:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Henry, I was not aware of taking a tone and I apologise if you took my comments as uncivil. As far as I have read WP:MOVE, the proposed NewName page needs to be completely blank or even non-existent (inapplicable in this case) for a move to take place, free of edit history, redirects, everything. This is why administrator help was required because the edit history needed to be deleted but the redirect, although they can be removed easily, is problematic as that will prevent a page move. I hope that explained the matter, perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong. ekantiK talk 15:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Try reading WP:MOVE#Moving_over_a_redirect --Henrygb 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance and the page move has worked. Please excuse me for not being thorough with WP:MOVE. Many thanks again. ekantiK talk 15:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have put forward a similar case with Shah Rukh Khan with the same reasons given as for Rani Mukherjee. Is it possible for you to assist with this page too? ekantiK talk 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Arms_of_El_Burgo_de_Osma.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms_of_El_Burgo_de_Osma.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As the page says it was "based on personal photgraph of local police car". So decide the copyright status of this coat of arms yourself. It used to have a Template:coatofarms, but the template was deleted by another bot, rather than replacing it with Template:logo. But I forget - this is automated institutional vandalism and bots will not read this message. --Henrygb 15:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Biocommunication (science)

Yes, I know that the semiotics part, being lingistic theory, is only quasi science, but to tell the truth I panicked when I saw the bot had identified this article for speedy deletion. I've been trying to disentangle the biological concepts of biocommunication and plant perception from Backster's paranormal theories for the better part of a week (see Plant perception (paranormal), Plant perception (physiology) and Biocommunication for some background) on this set of edits. Being a total noob to wikipedia editing I made a mistake and hit the wrong button, putting this article up 'way before it was ready. If you have the time to help or give more advice it would be appreciated. Trilobitealive 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for articles to speedy delete and this one didn't meet the criteria thanks to your additions. But the article clearly has a long way to go. I am the kind of person who found the Sokal hoax funny, but I am not an expert. --Henrygb 01:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for not deleting it. I'm going to be working on this cluster of articles for the next couple of weeks and will fight down the urge to not put a link to the original Sokal article in the list of references for Plant perception (paranormal). My field is human behavior so crackpottery like Backster's hypothesis knaws particularly voraciously at my guts. Trilobitealive 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Happy editing!!!--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Henrygb has deleted Brierdene Cricket Club without giving a reason. It doesn't have a reliable soruce unless you count my head. This has caused great disappointment to my team. Please reinstate my page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djminisite (talkcontribs) 12:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

The article read (without italics):
Brierdene Cricket Club is a local team based on Brierdene Green. The team has a enthusiastic response to all matchs and practices.
The team has a website
So this was an article about a club which in my view did not assert the importance or significance of the subject and so was suitable for speedy deletion under criterion A7. If you disagree, you can have my action reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Henrygb 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Atombomb.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Atombomb.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More bizarre behaviour from the image tagging crowd, this time semi-automated (the text above seems to have missed the PD tag). Not only did I create it (as should be obvious), I released it into the public domain well before this strange project took flight. And I did so simply to avoid an ugly redlink in a signature on this talk page. As I said on the image page. --Henrygb 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Henry. In fairness, {{PD}} doesn't specify the source; it could be public domain for a number of reasons (copyright expired, ineligibility for copyright, etc.). For future reference, the correct tag to use for works that you have created and are releasing into the public domain is {{PD-self}}. I've changed the tag on this image for you, and removed the "no source" for you, based on your above assertion. Happy editing. — TKD::Talk 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's be quite clear. When I created the 102 bytes Image:Atombomb.gif, the tags were not as they are now, and what I did then was compatible with image policy of the time. The continued use of the image should not depend on whether I am still editing and able to respond to queries. --Henrygb 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree that cases like these are unfortunate situations, where the old tags used were imprecisely worded, but the increased rigor is necessary. Of course, we should assume good faith, but that probably wouldn't hold up in a court of law. So it was necessary to clarify that you, the uploader, were also the creator. For a case like this, it probably would've been better to have used a customized message rather than the template, but, either way, the clarification would have been necessary, unfortunately. But, yes, I'll agree that this could have been handled more smoothly. — TKD::Talk 08:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What did you do with RuneScape locations?

Did you just revert back to the old article? Or did I do something wrong with the move? Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 01:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see what you did. Thanks. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminator III

Immediately replaced the speedy delete template on his talk page. This user is clearly a sock of banned user NoToFrauds. Where should I report this? A Ramachandran 02:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets--Henrygb 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the report is here if you are interested. A Ramachandran 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Less is not more (talkcontribs) 09:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you

For telling me about {{DarknessLord2}}. Thank you for giving me more proof that Mecu is officially ruining several hours of my time. -- ~D-Lord (Sign!) (TCE) 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You still need to sort out the redirected transclusions. --Henrygb 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Stockdale paradox into James Stockdale

I disagree with your merge. Please discuss on Talk:Stockdale_paradox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LightYear (talkcontribs).

You can always undo my changes (just edit the previous version in the histories, e.g. [27]). But it is an orphan article (i.e. it has no incoming links from other articles) and to me it is no paradox or even an argument for stoicism (Stockdale claims to have been optimistic as to the end result) and perhaps just an argument against expecting short timetables. There is certainly no logic involved. --Henrygb 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Redhouse Yacht Club

The Redhouse Yacht Club article to which you have contributed has been nominated for deletion due to lack of independent references and a concern that the Club may not be notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. I do not agree and am contesting the deletion. As a prior editor of this article, I am asking you to help in the process of clarifying these issues.


--Kevin Murray 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:County Londonderry Arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:County Londonderry Arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

American Mars Bar

There is very little available information about the American Mars Bar, but I have reason to believe that the 1936 date listed at when it was introduced in the USA is incorrect. It may have been the first incarnation of the Mars Bar (before the British one) or it may have been introduced much later, I just don't know. Obviously it was a lot less successful than the UK version so this may take a lot of work to dig up. As soon as I do find a reference, I will update that page. However, if you know for a fact that the British one was first, please cite it. Cshay 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that the Slough link implies it was the first Mars bar. And it looks plausible to me: it feels more likely that Forrest Mars Sr. would use his name for the UK Mars Bar copy of the original Milky Way and then his parents would take the name back but had to use it for something else in the US; the alternative would be that Frank and Ethel Mars created both the Milky Way and Mars bars in the US and then Forrest chose the wrong name for his UK product.

Richard Robinson

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Richard Robinson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Addhoc 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is clearly about a notable person (first Conservative leader of London CC). Take it to AfD is you wish but you will be wasting your time. --Henrygb 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if you want to improve this article, I won't pursue it to AfD. Addhoc 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You raised the issue of notability[28]. He is obviously notable and the article asserts that he is. I did not write it (his grandson did at my prompting to fill a redlink at List of heads of London government), but I typed the initial version in. If you want to look for more sources you could try various obituaries such as that published by the RPSGB.--Henrygb 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Vista SP1 ("Fiji")

In the deletion log, it is referred to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows "Fiji", dating back to August 2006. And if you read the reason for deletion, you find out, at that point, one thought this would be the next Windows release. This is no longer the case, more information about "Fiji" has appeared, and we know now, that this will be a service pack for Vista. The article will no longer lead to more confusion surrounding the future of Vienna, as it now is clear it is not a part of Vienna. Since it will include a updated kernel, it is important to have an article about Fiji, since it is clearly a major service pack. There are several sources talking about Vista SP1 and Fiji, and nearly all of them are from 2007, clearly a decision from August 206 is not valid anymore. Furthermore, for clarifying that Windows Vienna will be a minor release, considering the kernel update Vista will receive, it is important to have an article about Fiji. Is it possible to get a more detailed reason to why the article was deleted, other than the decision from August 2006? Thanks in advance. Mr Mo 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you wish. I see it has already been raised on your talk page. --Henrygb 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vista SP1 ("Fiji"). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mr Mo 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For a dedicated contributer who has gone far too long without recognition. —dgiestc 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


What's your source for "the quadrivium could be considered as the study of number: arithmetic was pure number, geometry was number in space, music number in time, and astronomy number in space and time."? It strikes me as a particular elegant characterization, and I'd like to trace it back to the original formulation. Ken Mondschein 04:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (contact me by e-mailing

(New sections at the bottom please). I can't remember where I originally heard this, but it is discussed at Talk:Quadrivium. A search such as [29] turns up various other people making the same point (in addition to various Wikipedia mirrors). --Henrygb 13:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Southwark

I believe MRSC's edits are right; it's a reorganisation of the London Postcode pages. Cheers Kbthompson 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me where the debate is so I can join in. --Henrygb 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what is gained by recreating a load of postcode stubs. The postal information is more useful presented by postcode area and the information about what is in the districts belongs in the local district articles, which should be the focus of such additions. MRSCTalk 08:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So there wasn't a debate then. I think that the postcode district is much more interesting than the postcode sector. SW2 has nothing in common with SW1 or SW3. Similarly in South East London. And a lot of people identify by postcode district. So the articles add value.--Henrygb 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, both of you, don't edit war with the use of speedy delete templates. You're just making work for the rest of us, especially when there's a backlog of 500+ in the category. Henry, the template doesn't link to anything and consists of just a speedy delete template. One of you please do something about that. And either of you might like to start a discussion on the talk page of the template as a substitute for the revert war. RΞDVΞRSЯΞVΞЯSΞ 08:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was transcluded on 28 pages before MRSC twice redirected them all without discussion. --Henrygb 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
And now the redirects have been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1 --Henrygb 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile and a Comment

Glens and Snow

Your comment on the Danny Boy history page states the words "glen and snow" suggests Scotland. Why? Glens are quite common in Ireland and Scotland does not have a monopoly on snow. There are thousands of towns in Ireland whose names begin with Glen. The Scots and the Irish are virtually the same race with a common language and culture there are 'loughs' in Ireland and 'lochs' in Scotland but there are Glens in both! Danny Boy is associated with Ireland (wheter right or wrong that is teh reality of it - ) the history of the song is linked to Northern Ireland and the similarity between the Scots and the Irish is stronger in Northern Ireland than in the rest of Ireland but the words Glen and Snow does not 'suggest' one over the other. What about the song "The Green Glens of Antrim"? Does this suggest that Antrim is in Scotland? Or Glendalough in County Wicklow or Glengarriff in County Cork to only name a few are not in Scotland. 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept that there are in fact pipes, glens, mountains and seasonal snow in Ireland as in Scotland. But the point is that it was a song written by an Englishman in 1910, with words which to an English eye and ear are cliché Scotland. It only got its Irish connection later when set to an Irish tune in 1913, and in the next few years became popular across the world, including among Irish émigrés. So it isn't justified to call it an Irish song (or indeed a Scottish song), rather than simply a song set to an Irish tune. Perhaps you could continue this at Talk:Danny Boy. --Henrygb 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Henrygb, could you please e-mail me regarding alternate accounts? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. You could try emailing me, but I don't promise to respond. --Henrygb 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't set up an e-mail address. And it's very important that you discuss this. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I did, a long time ago.--Henrygb 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not set up now. Please e-mail me as soon as possible; this is an important matter. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Henrygb. I've responded to your e-mail; please respond to mine. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Henrygb. It is very important that you respond to my e-mail; the Arbitration Committee is currently discussing this. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Are they? Where? --Henrygb 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Please respond to the e-mail. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were not on that mailing list any more. It all seems rather dubious. --Henrygb 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Look in the next section. You appear to be delaying. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see that. So it is even odder. You left the committee but are still part of their private conversations. --Henrygb 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"Odder" in what sense? Also, why are you still delaying? Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Because if you are not a member of the Committee, it seems odd that you are having private discussions with them. --Henrygb 07:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Henrygb. I just wanted to confirm that Jayjg has brought some information regarding alternate accounts to our attention on the mailing list. This could simply be a big misunderstanding, but it is imperative that you respond immediately. You can either reply to his email or email the Arbitration Committee mailing list directly at arbcom-l at Again, I cannot stress how important it is for you to reply now - otherwise, there may well be consequences. I hope this all is a big misunderstanding - in which case we'll be glad to apologize for troubling you - but you need to reply via email immediately. Please don't hesitate to contact me or any other Arbitration Committee member if you have any questions or comments at all. Thank you for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(as sent in e-mail) If there is an open request for arbitration going on involving the behaviour of individuals in the Wikipedia:Attribution debate I would be prepared (though not keen) to participate, though I will be away most of the coming week. But I don't see the point of private debates.--Henrygb 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for emailing me; I've replied to you via email. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Attribution debate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it has everything to do with Wikipedia:Attribution and Jayjg's connection with User:SlimVirgin. --Henrygb 07:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Creating summary of arguments against the merge

Hi, I've agreed very much with a lot of your posts in the WP:ATT discussion re truth etc. Sorry I didn't think of asking you earlier, but I could use some help (i.e. suggestions on the talk page) editing User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy which I plan to move into policy space and hope to have it presented in the "Other Statements" section for the poll as background information to balance the document SlimVirgin prepared. This might happen soon. --Coppertwig 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to use any of my earlier comments as you wish. --Henrygb 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Systematic bias and systemic bias

Hey, I've responded to your comment on my talk page. --JianLi 07:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please contact ArbCom

Please contact Arbcom via our mailing list or via any of our individual emails regarding your status. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All I asked for was an open discussion of the behaviour of Jayjg, SlimVirgin and others (such as Jossi) in relation to the Wikipedia:Attribution debate. But since you seem to be unwilling to act in the open there seems little point. I will be away for a week over Easter; if you wish to communicate with me, you can do so on my talk page and I will read it on my return. --Henrygb 16:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify two items. First, Jpgordon has contacted you on behalf of the Arbitration Committee regarding a matter that has been discussed at length by the Committee. As such, Jpgordon's note above speaks with the Committee's authority. Second, please be advised that this matter is unrelated to the Wikipedia:Attribution debate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If Jayjg and SlimVirgin have not told you that this is part of their campaign on the Wikipedia:Attribution debate then that is your problem not mine. Their behaviour (with a few others) in trying at the same time to be proponents of change and at the same time disinterested administrators is one of the reasons that dissenters were driven off the various talk pages and they could then claim a consensus which did not in fact exist. Similarly if Jayjg used his inside track into the Arbitration committee (of which he is no longer a member) then that too is an issue for the Arbitration committee rather than for me. --Henrygb 17:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Henry, you still seem to be under the misapprehension that this matter is somehow related to the Wikipedia:Attribution debate, as UninvitedCompany says above, it isn't. Any criticisms you may have regarding that debate, are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Regarding Jayjg, as a former member of the Committee in good standing, he has access to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. However any editor is free to bring a matter to the Committee's attention by either emailing a member, or emailing the Committee's mailing list. I urge you to cooperate with the Arbitration Committee, to bring about an reasonable conclusion to this matter. Paul August 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are working together on this then you need to do more research. They are clutching at straws as it becomes obvious that there is a wide divergence of opinion on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger despite earlier claims of consensus, having allowed the poll to open prematurely without even asking a structured question, opposing links to anti-merger essays even in talk page comments, taking a peremptory attitude to people who wanted a broader range of questions asked, freezing the project page so three days after the poll opened the headers still do not mention the poll is taking place and nobody can put it in, ... the list could go on. As I said, I am now away for a week, so feel free to take your time considering these points. --Henrygb 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this because of ChrisO's post. What Henry writes is nonsense. (1) Jayjg has had very little to do with ATT, either the policy or the poll; (2) the poll was not opened prematurely; it was opened when people agreed on a compromise question; (3) no structured question could be asked because people couldn't agree on one after two weeks of discussion, so a compromise was reached whereby users would simply be asked what they thought of ATT; (3) I don't think Jay had much, if anything, to do with the question that was chosen; (4) it was Crum375 who protected the project page; (5) the poll has been widely publicized and even added to watchlists; 600 people have voted in three days, so it's hardly a secret, and any admin who wants to can add an additional notice about it to ATT, including you, Henry. Please don't post these unsubstantiated allegations. It's especially odd coming from another admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Jayjg has been involved in WP:ATT for over four months, including (to take a small selection) inserting the claim it was one of Wikipedia's two core content policies[30], often making similar edits with cursory comments to SlimVirgin to prevent others adjusting the text [31][32], intervening in poll monitoring questions in a patronising manner biting new editors[33], compalining about a link on a user subpage of the preliminary anti-merger essay[34] while making no objection to a similar pro-merger link to SlimVirgin's essay at the top of the community discussion page while editing that page[35][36]
  2. The early sections of Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive4 certainly suggest it was started prematurely, with SlimVirgin's encouragement[37]. There clearly was not agreement on the question, otherwise the poll would not have been stopped and the early responses refactored[38]
  3. There was no consensus because various pro-merger individuals did not want a question asked at all, and certainly not one which went beyond a simple yes/no to the merge and were unwilling to compromise on devlving deeper into editors views (see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive1, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive3 etc.)
  4. Jayjg certainly took that view as for example shown in multiple edits to Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2#Keep it simple and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2#The words "in principle" as well as to the poll questions themselves.
  5. Crum375 was another early supporter of the merger; incidentally the page protection had Jayjg's explicit support (see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 14#Request unprotection of page). I am not trying to suggest that just two individuals were responsible for the whole mess over WP:ATT; just here.
  6. I had earlier been met with plain denials by the promerger advocates for prematurely questioning the status of the page (see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 13#Is this really policy?). I realised the danger of partisan admins using their powers in a way that people on the other side of the fence might object to and so instead asked a neutral admin to consider changes.[39]. SlimVirgin and Jossi (another advocate of merger) took a more direct approach in order to hide the implication that there might be a dispute about the page.[40][41] --Henrygb 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss here anything the Arbitration Committee may wish to raise, but it is now almost four weeks and I haven't had a response. --Henrygb 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Abusive use of alternate accounts

The Arbitration Committee has learned that you are utilizing User:Audiovideo as an alternate account. This has been confirmed by unusually compelling checkuser evidence. We note that in addition to providing recent support for your position in the Attribution poll, you have been complimenting your own photography, supporting your own RFA, and double voting at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The Committee does not believe that such conduct is appropriate for administrators. You may wish to voluntarily resign your adminship at m:Requests for permissions. Please contact me or the Committee if you have any questions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not double vote at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. The other quoted examples seem to be from over two years ago. --Henrygb 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss here anything the Arbitration Committee may wish to raise , but it is now almost four weeks and I haven't had a response. --Henrygb 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You were warned above, so promptly continued sockpuppeting with User:SE16 and User:Facethefacts. Several checkusers have looked over it and agree. But then, reality has a noted cabal bias, or something - David Gerard 12:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:RFAr#Henrygb - David Gerard 12:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rail gauge, See also

Rail gauge#See also I have added a number of links. That should take care of your concerns. Peter Horn 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks sensible --Henrygb 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion

Please support this AfD. Yellowbeard 10:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But I don't support it --Henrygb 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been unblocked to respond. Thatcher131 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The opening of your arbitration case has been delayed, and you have been unblocked. Please make any desired statement here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Henrygb Paul August 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Case now re-opened. Please participate on the case page, evidence, and/or workshop, as above. Newyorkbrad 14:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates for category TOC

It seems you invented template:catAZ. You mentioned it on the talk page for template:cattoc (or whatever that's redirected to - now archived). I've copied (with proper acknowledgment) pages using each, to the Genealogy Wikia (and may soon do the same to the Government Wikia). In order to give fellow-contributors an accurate guide to uses of those templates, I'd like your opinion on which is better or the situations in which one is better or worse.

Robin Patterson 13:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts, and SE16, the administrator privileges of Henrygb are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Wikipedia from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to advise that I have blocked this account to implement the above decision. Please contact the Arbitration Committee to address their concerns so that this block can be lifted. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoga poll

Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana#Opinion Poll on this article's name. Davin7 10:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:St Margaret.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:St Margaret.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Proportional approval voting

This has been nominated for AfD and tagged for rescue. Please find cites ASAP. Bearian 16:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


You DO know, if you respond to ArbCom, you'll be unbanned, right?

...unless you're evading it to regain adminship. >:( Naughty. Mr. Carbunkle 06:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Red Star

Hi, seeing you have been involved in the previous RM discussion, I thought you might be interested in this one too. BanRay 12:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi. As someone who has edited the Inniscrone and/or Enniscrone page recently, you may be interested in this. Regards, --The.Q(t)(c) 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fourth Party

I have nominated Fourth Party, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Party. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

roque now

Hi, I see you started the roque article. Any chance you're actually a roque player? I've just started the project of restoring a roque court, and wondered if you happened to have any information on where I could find court maintanance tools, balls, mallets... anything, really. Thanks! — eitch 23:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:Votes for page murder

I have nominated Template:Lw for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Richard0612 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of The Daily Beast

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Daily Beast, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Daily Beast is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Daily Beast, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

File:RARobinsonII C.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:RARobinsonII C.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Daily Beast

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Daily Beast, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Seems to fail WP:CORP, not widely covered in secondary sources.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Information.svg Hello Henrygb! 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 0 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Fred Catherwood - Template:Find sources

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cat09

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Cat09 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MI16

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article MI16 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for this article, fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Template:Tlc notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Template:Tlc will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Limerick

Info talk.png

Category:Limerick, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category A-Z TOC

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Category A-Z TOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Pamella Bordes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pamella Bordes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamella Bordes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ocaasi t | c 15:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)