User talk:Graemp

Hello, Graemp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Manual of Style
• How to edit a page
• An editing cheat sheet
• Help contents

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and ask your question here. Again, welcome! ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 18:33, April 9, 2007 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	In recognition of your hard work on history articles, especially about UK elections! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you recently passed your 1,000th edit to Wikipedia articles. Thanks for sticking around for so many years! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Graemp. Thanks for the extra results on this article. My sources only go back to 1931 so it's always good to see someone finding and supplying older results. doktorb _words^deeds 11:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [map]. It is not entirely your own work, is it? The outline map was prepared by me and comes from the US Election Atlas forum. Marplesmustgo (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Perhaps you might add a note to these various 1906 and 1910 maps that they are the work of Stepney from the US Election Atlas or Votetalk. Marplesmustgo (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say thanks for your excellent work on by-elections. Having started a few of these articles, I am pleased to see them so well expanded. Maps and pictures especially make a big contribution. --Rbreen (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After just seeing that your still having issues with people not accepting you have permission from the NPG (User talk:Stefan2), I was wondering if you had considered asking NPG if they are willing to put a public statement on their website to clearly state under what licence/conditions they grant to use images on Wikipedia? You could point out that they could benefit as the url would be linked on each picture and they could use the same page to encourage support, donation, sales etc. Also they could ask that each picture has a caption including 'from the National Portrait Gallery' etc. Keep up the good work - impressed with your efforts. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KylieT for your suggestions. (Stefan2 was not particularly helpful.) The NPG have a Creative Commons statement on their website that does not specifically mention Wikipedia. I don't think they would want to go down the road of mentioning any particular website. Your 'credit in the caption' is something that they actually include as a condition in their license. When I first started including their portraits I included their recommended caption. However another Wikipedia editor came along and removed this aspect from the caption as it was apparently in breach of Wikipedia's captioning policy. Ho hum. This is a morale draining experience but your encouragement is uplifting. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already noticed I have started to upload some of the missing images from NPG on the sections of Articles with missing files that have been 'cleared'. It does still seam ridiculous that the NPG give a license to use and it's still such a problem... I resized mine (keeping the meta data) so hopefully they wont be removed. I also contacted the NPG to point out the problems and asked if they would consider releasing even lower resolution pictures with a fully free (CC-BY) license - it's a long shot but you don't get if you don't ask ;) KylieTastic (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in hearing any feedback you get from the NPG. I have been uploading the portraits in batches, partly so that I could see what additional problems occurred, and adapt the upload method accordingly.Graemp (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a reply back already! They are going to discuss the idea internally and with other UK museums and Galleries. They said they are aware the current licence is the most restrictive CC licence and as it's been over a year since launch they are going to review the impact. However due to other projects and resources they are unlikely to make any changes till after April next year. Lastly, they said "It is also extremely useful for us to have the views from Wikipedia contributors." - So at least it's positive KylieTastic (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. Good work KylieT. I have drafted an email to them asking them to change the licence status of their Walter Stoneman portraits where I believe there is a particularly strong moral case for them being free to use on wikipedia. Can you tell me who at the NPG you contacted/got back to you?Graemp (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just contacted them on the email they gave for "Licensing and copyright" [email protected] (or if you like to call people +44 (0)207 312 2473/4). I'm thinking about contacting other sources of images as well for CC-BY access to 'low' quality resources, I really want more astronomy and taxonomic free image sources. KylieTastic (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am pausing my upload of NPG images until further notice following an email from the NPG in which they state that they are currently not prepared to licence their images to wikipedia for two reasons;

• Wikipedia does not recognise UK copyright law
• Wikipedia operates a quality/sizing alteration policy

If I knew someone (preferably not a lawyer) at wikipedia to speak to about this, then I would. Graemp (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Shows how out of touch they are. When the orginal problem between NPG(UK) and the Wikipedia Foundation happened in 2009 that may have been true, but now the policy is to uphold local copyright law, as per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. The CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 does not explicitly stop resizing (after reading the full legal text) - but it is a legal grey area, but from their email I guess they don't like it - not really sure why. It would be nice if the Wikipedia actually had some ways to deal with these issues, the Foundation itself should talk more to these organisations. Need to get Wikipedia to accept CC-BY-NC-ND @ 800px for WP:NFC - I guess Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would be the place to point out the issue KylieTastic (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is confusing KT, I received a reply by email from a/the Rights & Images Manager who said; "At present, we cannot license any images for use on Wikipedia due to the terms they wish to impose on uploaded content (and because they don’t adhere to UK copyright law)." I responded by saying that I would pause uploads and posted my previous message. I then get a further email in which sam person says "We don’t exclude Wikipedia, but my understanding was that Wikipedia would not except this type of CC licence (I was contacted by someone earlier this week who said that Wikipedia administrators were removing images uploaded under this particular licence). If they do, then that is fine, and you can use the images we have available in this way" I responded to this by clarifying the problems that I had encountered. I have heard nothing further as yet. Given your comment, I am less certain that the person I have been in email contact with, knows what they are talking about. As for the problem with re-sizing, I may have assumed from the first quote that this was the identified problem - however I may have assumed wrongly.Graemp (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guys that work there are probably as much if not more confused by the exact legal positions as we are. I think mostly they are there to basically deal with sales of the images, they may not even have a single member of staff willing to comment outside the guidelines they probably have. I would suspect the reason I was told April 2014 was because even if they will talk among themselves and the other galleries they will need to pay lawyers, and web developers to sort any change out. My reading of the situation is they are happy for their CC images to be used on Wikipedia (not Commons) even resized, just not change in other ways, or loosing the meta data in re-sizing. For the overzealous image checkers on here it will probably mean having to resize (I've been halving mine to 400px). Also maybe only use on the key articles about the person, not the others about individual elections. Also I would advise linking to the actual image download page as the source and licence links, as that way anyone can track back the claim. I haven't had any challenges on any of mine yet - fingers crossed :) KylieTastic (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message.

I have been doing a bit of work on LCC elections over here: 1889 [1] and working on 1892 [2]. It's perfectly permissible to copy this into Wikipedia but we should try and get the formatting consistent.

In the 1889 election party labels were somewhat flexible, some candidates were nominated by local Liberal/Radical associations and some by Unionists and some by both. By 1892 the two parties were well established.

Some years ago User:Sam Blacketer shared his data on LCC election results with me, which is mostly extracted from the official poll books, and these are also covered in the newspapers of the time which are available online. The names of members come from Achievement: A Short History of the LCC by W Eric Jackson, published in 1965 at the end of the council. I have been trying to flesh out the names and biographies a bit as much as I can. It turned out that we had some individuals listed under different names who turned out to be the same person (often they had terms as aldermen and councillors at different times or represented different divisions), while there were some members who had namesakes (sometimes father and son) who appeared to be a single person. I think we are getting of top of this now. Lozleader (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, just wondering how to deal with by-elections/co-options? Add to bottom of election article or give them something like London County Council by-elections and co-options 1919-22 etcetera? Lozleader (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spent too long thinking about your options without reaching a conclusion. I'll leave the decision and the resulting work to you. Either option would reduce the need to keep the information on the lists pages which I think is good. Just adding at the bottom to start with would be easiest. A subsequent creation of a specific page could then be easily done if it seems the right thing to do. Graemp (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to join us on London Wiki? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall concentrate on adding stuff on here, but I have no problem with you copying the LCC articles acrossGraemp (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to take the key dates/details and refer back to the WP page - but some people are 'too marginal' for here (and there are only two of us there). Jackiespeel (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graemp could you please check that I have done a new reference the right way on the Professor Sir Arnold Lupton page? Great diagrams by the way! Well Done. Thanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.225 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't profess to be any authority on reference style but it looks right to me. I am glad you appreciate my use of wikipedia graphics. Regarding your text edit and references, I think it may be difficult for the casual reader such as myself, to work out what his position was on any of the issues you mention.Graemp (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Graemp, hope you're well.

I have just spotted St Helens is devoid of all results. I'll do 1945 onwards for you now, I know how you like the dust covered older results ;) (And tbf, I only have easy access to post-1945 results....) doktorb _words^deeds 14:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

okay Dok, as StH is abolished, I'll do them with the older results higher up the page.Graemp (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand stuff. And lo and behold, politicsresources goes back to 1931, so that's saved you a bit..... doktorb _words^deeds 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A warning about that site - some of their electorates and turnouts differ from Craig and The Times House of Commons who tend to agree. TTHoC (which also give first names) for 1945-1970 can be accessed here http://tools.assembla.com/svn/grodt/uk/thc/files/ Graemp (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you please check the references for James Bryce, 1st Viscount - is my layout OK? The information is all fine - (fron the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) Cheers and Happy new Year! Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.225 (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks okay to my unexpert eye.Graemp (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graemp,

Just to keep you informed that I am continuing to work on Welsh UK constituency results since 1931 for the forseeable, followed by Scotland (if you want to look in and give me a hand...)

Keep up the good work and thanks for your support this far.

The Literal Democrat

I am happy to concentrate on pre-1931 results, though I reserve my right to meddle in post-1931 results where I feel the urge. When I do, it is usually because I have identified additional data such as electorates and forenames. I assume you have been using http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/edates.htm which often use 'different' (perhaps unreliable) electorate data to other major sources such as Craig and TTHoC. TTHoC results/biographies for 1950-70 can be located here http://tools.assembla.com/svn/grodt/uk/thc/files/ and are far more reliable IMHO. A good additional source for Welsh results is Etholiadau'r ganrif http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tb8bAQAAMAAJ&q=Etholiadau'r+ganrif&dq=Etholiadau'r+ganrif&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5k3MUuODEM6S7AaHr4H4Dg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA Graemp (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes Scotland. I may jump back to Wales and England when my interest takes me but for now am trying to complete as many 'interesting' seats as possible - ones that are not very 'safe' for any party.

Hi, unsure why you reverted my edit on Sydney Arnold, 1st Baron Arnold as External links sections come after Reference sections as per WP:ORDER. Keith D (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems logical to me to have them in this order. Unlike External links sections, often Reference sections are very long, and when the name of the section is not visible on the screen, it could cause problems. Which is the point made in WP:ORDER, though it concludes by making the opposite determination which is odd. Perhaps there is a miss-print here.Graemp (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a little bemused to discover you are adding a mass of similar statements to politician's articles stating they voted on an issue on a certain date; and further that you are supporting these by a bare URL reference.

There are thousands of votes by politicians around the world on issues every day; very few of these are notable, so a mere record that X voted for Y, as proven by Hansard (a primary source) is not in itself proof that anything notable has happened. Further, it clutters up the encyclopedia. If a politician is a man resolutely anti-Fascist, and he can be shown to have voted for a right-wing measure, that might be significant, but it would be Original Research to use a primary source to show that -- you would have to find a secondary source which pointed out that he had been hypocritical to vote like that, for it to be acceptable here at Wikipedia. If the additions were being made to further a cause, then they would constitute Point of View editing.

I do hope you will stop this action. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest. There are indeed thousands of votes and you illustrate how some votes can be more informative/notable than others. The matter then comes down to interpretation of the degree and any clutter point is in itself irrelevant. I feel able to make an interpretation based upon my knowledge of the subject area. I note that you have made a different one, which is not something I can do anything about other than encouraging you to read around your subject. Graemp (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have made no interpretation at all, merely stated why interpretation is dangerous and NOT OUR JOB. We are to find reliable secondary sources, and while we are not totally forbidden from using primary sources like Hansard (going there to prove the exact wording of a quote from a speech might be a justifiable example), it is not acceptable to take a set of primary sources and to weave them into an argument not stated by any of the sources, that is pure WP:OR and not allowed.

Secondly, the clutter is serious, because it appears to be POV, modifying how readers may think about the human subjects of these articles.

So, let me ask directly (in lieu of reverting a substantial number of your edits), why are you adding mentions of who voted for women's right to vote, and how are you selecting which articles to add this to? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "No, I have made no interpretation at all" ignores "If a politician is a man resolutely anti-Fascist, and he can be shown to have voted for a right-wing measure, that might be significant". By sending me a message you have clearly made an interpretation regarding the notability of this vote, and there is nothing wrong in that.

Secondly, something that could be described as clutter may or may not be POV.

Thirdly, you would do well to note that I stopped doing this at 08:38 this morning, over an hour before you contacted me and I have not continued since.

Finally, I regard wikipedia as a collaborative project in which editors can work together and would expect any editor who took the trouble to post a message on my talkpage to seek to be helpful. Leaving aside the general tone of your messages, (you may want to read Wikipedia:Civility when you have a moment), I find it difficult to interpret what you are saying because of the contradictory nature of your comments.Graemp (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you find me unclear and uncivil, I should strive to avoid both those sins. I am very glad to hear you are making no more of them. Let me try again.

I do not know what you were trying to achieve with your edits. If you would care to explain what they are intended to achieve, it would be appreciated. If that purpose is to advocate a point of view, based on primary sources, then I believe the edits should be reverted. If you are in the process of adding secondary sources and other materials for some other purpose, to which the edits so far made will contribute in some way, I will happily await those developments. With best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This division is sufficiently notable enough to warrant informing how some MPs voted in it, hence my initial Arnold Lupton edit. I thought I might be able to easily do this in a satisfactory way but quickly worked out that this was not possible. I am undecided as to how and when I will return to this issue. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia (not just stubs) that are under-developed. Given that the information I added is not misleading or poorly sourced, I did not think I needed to revert my edits. Graemp (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll think what to do. Reversion is clearly an option but it may be we can find a less drastic route. More generally, I feel we shouldn't add similar phrases and refs to a mass of articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be back... for now? :-) Lozleader (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Helen Fraser (feminist), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Helen Fraser was the first woman to be adopted as an official party candidate for parliament in Scotland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Fraser (feminist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The final text said "from Scotland" and linked the parliament to the UK one. If you want to talk more about the issues you raised then do try my talk page. However you imply that you want to talk to the right person .... not sure we have that person. Womens History do also have a discussion page and there is systemic bias. I was pleased to see your article made a number 2 slot on the main page when there was a surplus of articles trying to get there. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you added a {{keep local}} to the file you uploaded? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted the file to be kept on wikipedia. Just wondering why you asked here rather than on the file talkpage? Graemp (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... is there a specific reason? Files on Commons are just as easily accessible to Wikipedia, and using exactly the same syntax, as files kept locally here. In addition, and unlike files kept locally, files on Commons are available to other projects (other languages' Wikipedias, Wikibooks, etc.)striking because you obviously know this already. I'm trying to understand the logic of keeping the local copy (or indeed uploading it here instead of there?). Usually files tagged {{keep local}} have some kind of licensing issues or there is some other clear reason. I ask here for two reasons: first, since this applies to many files, and the thing they have in common is that you uploaded them; and second, File talk pages are very underutilized, and a question there is likely to go unanswered :-) Cheers, Storkk (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Although you raised the question with regard to a specific file, I see you are more interested with the general practice. When using the wikipedia upload wizard, uploaders are given the choice of where they wish to upload files. They are also given the choice to stipulate if they wish for a local copy to be retained. Wikipedia obviously recognise that there are reasons why an uploader might want to select these options and thus make them available without stipulating what these reasons might be. For anyone who is interested, I'm sure there is a way of finding out what they think these various reasons will be. Cheers. Graemp (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Geoffrey Mander.jpg

Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Circa1910 Harry Gosling.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter Dingley 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/Walter Leslie Dingley 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 notice from the top of the article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be a seasoned editor. I need assistance in restoring a crucial descriptive paragraph that is the basis for the Wiki page. The paragraph concerns information from almost 30 years ago concerning the cold war, nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. The word activist, which was used twice has also been removed, in addition an image of a map and numerous key descriptive words. I was wondering if you would be interested in assisting me? Thank you 24.251.41.161 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graemp,

Just to confirm for the next few weeks I will be concentrating on the following constituencies in terms of completing their post-1930 election results: Hertfordshire East Ogmore Swansea East Wrexham Harwich

If you have the time, I would welcome a helping hand or even a second pair of eyes to clean up anything I've missed.

I would say 'goodbye' but I can't spell it, The Illiterate Democrat

Okay. I will check those pages in due course and improve their pre-1945 results. You will find that this link provides all the information including candidate fore names. http://tools.assembla.com/svn/grodt/uk/thc/files/marked_up/ Graemp (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you had been involved in the deletion discussion on the Aberdeen North by-election, 1928 I thought you would be interested in a deletion discussion I opened around uncontested ministerial by-elections. JASpencer (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be working now Graemp!

doktorb _words^deeds 12:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The colour is a bit bright tho. Graemp (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graemp. Wondering if you could add the full names to the Tynemouth Constituency election history? Ta for all your work and suggestions, by the way. - The Literal Democrat

ok Graemp (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't seem to find the Sutton constituency anywhere old man... Can you direct me? - The Literal Democrat Sutton Coldfield (UK Parliament constituency) Sutton and Cheam (UK Parliament constituency) Plymouth Sutton (UK Parliament constituency) Graemp (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Graemp, the talk page is here. You can follow the metadata links to the name and colour. doktorb _words^deeds 08:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graemp! Wondered if you would oblige me and help complete this constituency's election results in the 1920s? Free cake will be served in gratitude. The Literal Democrat.

Hi Graemp. The article as it existed when I deleted it was just obvious vandalism/hoax material, nothing of value what so ever. I'd be happy if you want another admin the verify this. Nice to see some proper content take it's place, thanks for the work you've done on the article - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your nominating Betty Morgan (politician), but issues of this nomination must be resolved. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you come across material relating to London-based politicians feel free to contribute to [3] - Original Research is welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you come across material I have uploaded relating to London-based politicians feel free to copy to [4]. Graemp (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and if you come across 'relevant persons too obscure for WP' they can have a good home. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a long shot, but given your interest in historical London government, can you tell me anything about this individual (biography from The Times House of Commons); Mr. L. Fior is a solicitor and formerly a barrister Born in 1896; educated at King's College, London University, and Gray's Inn. Former member of London County Council and Middlesex county council. Served with The Middlesex Regiment, 1916-19. - He does not appear in any of the LCC lists on wikipedia. Graemp (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butting (User:Jackiespeel tipped me off). Nobody of that name was a member of LCC (there's a complete alphabetical list in the appendix of Jackson, William Eric (1965). Achievement : a short history of the London County Council. London: Longmans.. Can't see any very similar possibly misspelled names either. Any chance you could say which election and constituency he stood in. I might be able to cahse him up. Lozleader (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Uxbridge (UK Parliament constituency) 1951. I can confirm that the surname is correctly spelt. Graemp (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We divide up the research/material between us. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was Lucien Fior, born 2Q 1896 in St George in the East Registration District and married Olga Samuel in 3Q 1928 in Paddington Registration District according to FreeBMD. He is mentioned here in a letter about his son: David Wingate (9 October 2012). ["http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/oct/09/robin-fior-design" "Letter: Robin Fior's design for student life"]. The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help) The identity cards case seems to have been quite notable from a quick Google search. If you put his name into The Times Digital Library search, you can follow his legal career. He wrote a letter published in the paper on 2 February 1953 as Joint Honrary Secretary, Liberal Candidates Association."When Controls Go". The Times. 2 February 1953. p. 3. He is also mentioned in a number of notices in the London Gazette. If this family history site is to be believed, he died in Cannes on 4 July 1987 "Family Tree: Ian's Tree".. As to him being a member of the London County Council this seems wrong and I can't find any reference him to being a member of Middlesex County Council. Perhaps he did legal work for the councils? Lozleader (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Lucien Fior is our man. According to the Chelmsford Chronicle of Friday 27 March 1925, he was being considered as a potential Liberal candidate to contest South East Essex. "Mr. Fior is a practising barrister, a Jew by race and religion, of Rumanian descent, but of British birth."Lozleader (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your confirmation and additional research. The Times source http://tools.assembla.com/svn/grodt/uk/thc/files/marked_up/1951_marked_up.txt is clearly an error as I had feared. I had also assumed that this was Lucien Fior. Graemp (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this - would [5] be of interest? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graemp! Wondered if you would oblige me and help complete these constituencies election results in the 1920s and 1910s? Free cake on its way. Literal Democrat (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will tackle all the pre-1950 stuff. I notice that sometimes you seem to use The Times House of Commons sources I showed you and sometimes not. If you used The Times ... it would save me the trouble of going over your good work adding the forenames. Graemp (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find those files are not in alphabetical order and put simply - can't be bothered... Literal Democrat (talk)

I don't know how it's going to be changed but it's just going to be completely impossible for Mr. Harper to call an election for this year now. I don't know how to fix all this.--Jack Cox (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But not impossible for it to be 2016. Graemp (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Peter Grafton, Graemp!

Wikipedia editor Gareth E Kegg just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Is Grafton really a politician?

To reply, leave a comment on Gareth E Kegg's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. This image was moved over to Commons as being PD, but since you (apparently, from what was stated) don't have an actual copy of the postcard itself, it's lacking 'evidence' that it's actually PD. It would (obviously) be perfectly fine as on enwiki under fair use, but do you have any other information that indicates the actual age? Please comment at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:1906 Eustace Fiennes MP.jpg. Thanks. Revent^talk 12:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly PD as I point out in the deletion request discussion. Graemp (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It crossed my mind that you may believe that I consider you some sort of a ″wikienemy″ of mine. Whether or not you do, I have to tell you that such an assumption would not by any means be true. What is true is that I noticed some flaws (as I perceive[d] them) in your actions, one after another, admittedly, and I rushed to correct them. I acknowledge that I may have been wrong from time to time and I hope you do the same. I believe thay Gershon Ellenbogen deserves a second chance as an article. I would appreciate it if you could also better Kemp′s article too. A notable scientific accomplishment would be fine. Another suggestion I would like to make, is that you also uploaded images of Conservative and Liberal Unionist politicians of the 1875-1925 era. You have access to more resources than the average Wikipedia user does and it is a pity that you only use them for Liberals. I would be delighted if you could also upload images of Conservative MPs of the said era. I have already started doing this with all Conservatives and Liberal Unionists that I could find at Black & White and I am not finished yet. Such help from you, would be very much appreciated.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time I make mistakes and don't mind if these are corrected. I also do not mind if other users contact me if they have a query about a file I have uploaded or an article to which I have contributed, either on my talk page or the talkpage of the file/article. My file upload list contains images of Socialists and Unionists as well as Liberals. Graemp (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ronnie Fraser at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ronnie Fraser, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1950 Ronnie Fraser stood as a candidate for the UK Parliament, even though he was too young to vote in that election? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ronnie Fraser. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 06:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries more frequently, as I have no idea why you deleted electorate data from Devizes and Westbury election results.[6][7] --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Okay, I will. I used to make a point of adding electorates to the table title bar until it was pointed out to me that this was an improper use of the project's template. So now, if I happen to be making an edit, I delete the electorate. Graemp (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I wonder who pointed out that and why they don't like it. Can we move the electorate elsewhere in the article instead of deletion? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think adding electorates outside of the table is a good idea. I'm also not minded to propose a new table design for the project. Graemp (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea. Before we delete the electorate figure, we use it to calculate the turnout. (turnout = total votes / electorate * 100 ) What do you think? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all the on-line sources used have already calculated turnout. Graemp (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no turnout figures in the Devizes and Westbury elections linked above. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you have or can you find and upload an image of Max Muspratt? Thanks in advance.--The Theosophist (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this one http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1595815 was deleted from the article as the file had been deleted because of a licence issue. Given the image was dated 1917, this seems odd as a 1917 image would be free to use. Even if the 1917 date is questionable, which I don't think it is, the image could have been retained under fair use. You could upload it again. Graemp (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this I am going to do. Thank you!--The Theosophist (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was selected for the image slot based upon a number of factors. First and foremost was simple luck of the draw. The nomination was in the right place at the right time to be selected. Beyond that, DYK tries to run a variety of images. It has been a while since DYK used the portrait of a man in the image slot (last one ran on April 29) so we have been getting due for one. My personal patterns when building DYK sets also played a part. I try to "share the wealth" when selecting hooks for the image slot and the article's nominator has not received an image slot in a while. This was not true for several other hooks I considered for the slot. Finally, when I promote a hook to the prep areas I also perform a simplified review (a full DYK review usually takes me 30 to 60 minutes per article). My first choice left me uncomfortable with the quality of its sourcing so I left it for another set builder to deal with. This opened the door for Asher. --Allen3 ^talk 15:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salisbury City Council election, 2009. Moonraker (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. No57 took the trouble to ask UK politics project members to comment, which was good. I am pleased to see that you have addressed No57's concerns about the articles referencing. Might I suggest that you refrain from addressing the nature of the referencing in the Afd as it is not a relevant consideration. Perhaps the two of you would consider discussing this subject either privately or on the article's talkpage. Graemp (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The decades are slightly out of order (and I don't wish to 'scramble the tables' by moving them around).

If you wish to make use of [8] feel free. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this incomplete flipping with me, I had forgotten I had not completed it.

You have previously mentioned using your London site to host articles that fail wikipedia notability, such as individual election candidates. I would be interested to know how you visualise this working. For instance, there is little point with duplicating the Uxbridge page on your site. As an example, I could create a page for one of the candidates Cecil Binney a minor notability on your site, which could be linked in the wikipedia article. While I think this would be useful for wikipedia readers looking for more, would you be happy for your site to be used in such a patchwork fashion? Graemp (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone in 'what is #now# loosely Greater London' can be included': and from the LW point of view at least crosslinking to and from WP pages to avoid duplication on LW and 'discussions over notability on WP' is reasonable. To use an example of someone already on LW - is [9]/[10] notable enough to be given his own page on WP, or should there be merely links from Thomas Brooks (disambiguation) and Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Brilliant, thank you. So he was spelt wrongly (a bee in my bonnet!) and now you have corrected and clarified. that's great, many thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; parliamentary candidate forenames are my speciality. Graemp (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I call a niche! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1923 Audley Bowdler.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From your work on past election candidates, are you aware of any surviving candidates from the 1950 UK general election, other than Richard Body? I'm sure there must be others, but I can't find them. I'm pulling together a list by party and year of the oldest, youngest and last surviving candidates at User:Warofdreams/Party candidate records in the thought this might prove of some use in future. Warofdreams talk 18:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have carried out extensive research on this very subject, but only for the Liberal candidates. According to my research the following are still alive;

• Glyn Tegai Hughes, Denbigh, (born 1923)
• Elizabeth 'Beth' May Graham, Faversham, (c1927)
• Dr Roy Ian Douglas, Merton and Morden, (1924)

There are about 200 others for whom I have not been able to confirm a death. Graemp (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, if you're sure the date of death of the photographer was 1941, I believe this photograph is now in the public domain under the life + 70 years rule. Any particular reason you added the "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons" tag ? regards, Rod in Sydney. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had provided no information for the death of the photographer, this information was provided by another user. I have often added the 'don't copy to commons' tag to files that I think may be deleted if they are transferred to Commons. From my experience I have discovered that a file that is regarded as free on wikipedia may not be treated as such on commons. That is probably why I restored the tag. If an editor was to decide to remove this tag from a file and copy the file to commons and then delete the file from wikipedia, I would hope that they would know what they are doing. Graemp (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up that I've created an article on Roland Casasola, who was Labour PPC for Bury in 1939/40. Warofdreams talk 15:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In 1939, 11 Bury Labour members were expelled for Popular Front sympathies. I'd be interested to know where Casasola stood on this subject. Graemp (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The DLB article didn't mention that, but stated that in 1945 he stood on a conventional Labour Party platform; it seems his move towards the CPGB happened later, after he became more active in the union. Warofdreams talk 12:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Evening News, 4 Apr 1939 ran a story on the expulsions which included DLP President Walter Dale. The story also mentions that Casasola withdrew as Labour candidate in November 1938 and that by the time of the article he had been replaced as candidate by William Harvey Moore. I know nothing of a Liberal being in the field so it seems unlikely that he withdrew in favour of a Liberal. Graemp (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've found a list of Labour Party candidates the MFGB had agreed to sponsor by the outbreak of World War I: Walsh (Ince), Sutton (Manchester E), Roebuck (Doncaster), Lunn (Holmfirth), Grundy (Hallamshire), Hall (Normanton), Stanley (NW Staffs), Martin (NE Derbys), Richardson (Houghton-le-Spring), Batey (S Shields), Watts Morgan (Rhondda), J. Williams (Gower), Brace (W Monmouthshire), Adamson (W Fife), Robertson (NE Lanarks), Brown (Midlothian). In addition, the following candidates had been adopted by local MFGB affiliates as Labour candidates and were seeking MFGB funding: Twist (Wigan), Greenall (Leigh), Guest (Barnsley), Potts (Osgoldcross), Cairns (Morpeth), Straker (Wansbeck), Gilliland (Chester-Le-Street), Hartshorn (Mid Glam), Onions (E Glam), Winstone (N Monmouths), Richardson (Whitehaven). This is all from Roy Gregory, The Miners and British Politics, pp.50-51. Warofdreams talk 13:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. You've given me 4 names I did not have. Graemp (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Have you seen [11]? Unfortunately, I can't see the pages before or after, but it lists the constituencies with Labour Party candidates approved centrally by January 1915. I think I can get access to a hard copy next week, if it's useful. Warofdreams talk 14:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had accessed that book preview before. There may be some run on data not picked up by the preview. If you decide to track down hard copy and happen to find anything of interest to me, that would be nice. Graemp (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the book, and although there is no more to that table, there's a really useful summary on pages 326-327. From internal Labour Party documents, he places constituencies in four columns: those won in 1910, those with sanctioned candidatures, those with candidates selected, and other possible contests. In summary, the party had decided to stand in every constituency it won in 1910 other South Glamorganshire (presumably candidature dependent on MP's continued support for Labour) and possibly Hallamshire (candidate selected but MFGB supportive only if Wadsworth did not wish to remain in post, even as a Lib-Lab). In Chester-le-Street, the MFGB had agreed a new candidate, but the Labour NEC still hoped the current MP might re-stand. The NEC had also sanctioned candidates in Bishop Auckland, Jarrow, Portsmouth, Oldham, Preston, St Helens, Leigh, Wigan, Birmingham East, Coventry, Hull West, Sowerby, Bermondsey, Glasgow Camlachie, Ayr South, Midlothian and Lanarkshire SE. Those with candidates selected but not fully sanctioned were: Darlington, S Shields, Houghton-le-Spring, NW Durham, Eccles, Newton, Nottingham E, Bristol E, Birmingham W, York, Keighley, Barnsley, Rotherham, Osgoldcross, Mid Glamorgan, East Glamorgan, West Monmouthshire, Leith, Montrose and West Lothian. He notes the list isn't totally comprehensive as trade unions had been allocated a certain number of candidatures each, and some - particularly the MFGB - had selected some candidates who don't appear on this list.

And on a minor note, I've also found that the Socialist Party of Great Britain had selected Clifford Groves for East Ham North in 1939/40 and were heavily promoting him. Warofdreams talk 16:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know about SPGB. Glamorgan South is surprising, Brace was SWMF sponsored and continued to take the Labour Party whip, so I don't understand the hesitancy. Hallamshire is interesting; both Wadsworth and Grundy were Liberals, Grundy had agreed to run as a Labour candidate and Wadsworth was to re-take the Liberal whip. I assume from what you read that the YMA had agreed to sponsor either one or the other depending on which one stood. John Wilkinson Taylor announced in 1914 he would retire. South Shields, Jarrow and Hull West candidates withdrew in 1914. Lanarkshire South East and West Lothian don't appear to be constituencies at the time. Graemp (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I guess Lanarkshire SE is a misprint for either Lanarkshire NE or Lanarkshire S, but no way of telling which one without further information. He also lists the non-existent Lanarkshire W in the uncertain list, so there's something odd going on there. Apparently West Lothian was an alternative name for Linlithgowshire (indeed, the official name was changed in 1945). It seems Brace was never keen on joining Labour and, while he ultimately stuck with the party, I guess the NEC were unsure whether he would. On Hallamshire, that's essentially right, apparently Wadsworth hadn't decided whether to re-stand, if he did, the YMA would sponsor him even if he stood as a Lib-Lab, but if he didn't then Grundy had been selected and the MFGB would sponsor him. Warofdreams talk 16:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the answer to the Lanarkshire question: the Labour Year Book of 1916, p.317, confirms it was Lanarkshire NE, where Duncan Graham was the candidate. It seems that year book has a complete list of selected candidates and their constituencies and sponsors, but unfortunately I only have access to snippets on Google Books. Warofdreams talk 18:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have Lanarkshire North-East as J. Robertson, MFGB sponsored in 1914. I also have Linlithgow rumoured in 1914 that George Dallas would run. Do you have a link for Labour Year Book of 1916? Graemp (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's here, although I can't even see snippets today. I should be able to see a hard copy next week, if we can't get the useful information out of Google. Warofdreams talk 13:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to see the 1916 Year Book. The snippets were misleading, as it moves straight on from a list of approved candidates (Robertson in Lanark NE) to one of agents (Duncan Graham for Lanark NE). Anyway, in case there are any names you are missing, the approved candidates with constituencies attached at that point were:

• James Bell (Accrington)
• James Brown (S Ayrshire)
• Alfred Salter (Bermondsey)
• George Shann (Birmingham E)
• F. W. Kneeshaw (Birmingham W)
• Ben Spoor (Bishop Auckland)
• Walter Ayles (Bristol E)
• James Alston (Camlachie)
• James Gilliland (Chester-le-Street)
• R. C. Wallhead (Coventry)
• Samuel Roebuck (Doncaster)
• G. H. Stuart (NW Durham)
• James Hindle Hudson (Eccles)
• Alfred Onions (E Glam)
• William Lunn (Holmfirth)
• W. P. Richardson (Houghton-le-Spring)
• John Robertson (Lanark NE)
• Thomas Greenall (Leigh)
• Joseph Nicholas Bell (Leith)
• James Winstone (Merthyr)
• Robert Brown (Midlothian)
• John Cairns (Morpeth)
• James Seddon (Newton)
• W. C. Robinson (Oldham)
• J. McTavish (Portsmouth)
• Tom Shaw (Preston)
• James Walker (Rotherham)
• James Sexton (St Helens)
• J. W. Ogden (Sowerby)
• Henry Twist (Wigan)
• Alexander Walkden (Wolverhampton W)
• Henry Slesser (York)

Some useful additional info, thanks. I have two queries which hopefully you can easily check;

• F. W. Kneeshaw (Birmingham West): According to Political Change and the Labour Party 1900-1918 in 1914 it was James Kneeshaw. In 1918 John W. Kneeshaw fought Birmingham Ladywood. It is possible that there were 3 different people and all this info is correct - or there could be an error somewhere.
• James Gilliland (Chester-le-Street): I had John Gilliland, not sure where from and thought it might have been John Edward "Jack" Gilliland (1877 -1951), who is a different person. Graemp (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry on these - Kneeshaw is me mistyping, it is J. W. Kneeshaw in the original - Tanner (p.186) confirms that James Kneeshaw is the candidate in question, though from the sources I've found, I'm not 100% sure the two are not the same person. And on Gilliland, the original is just "J. Gilliland" of Birtley, so unfortunately it could be either. Warofdreams talk 17:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am reasonably convinced that it is John William Kneeshaw (Debrett's and author references) that is the J.W. Kneeshaw and that Tanner mistakenly referred to him as James Kneeshaw. On checking, I can only find J. Gilliland and therefore think you were right in assuming James Gilliland. Graemp (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Dugald Macfadyen, Graemp!

Wikipedia editor Ajraddatz just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good. I'll add an infobox to it, and see if I can find more references or info on his parliamentary career.

To reply, leave a comment on Ajraddatz's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi Graemp, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ian Stevenson Webster 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/Ian Stevenson Webster 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Booth (judge) 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/James Booth (judge) 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter Dingley 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/Walter Dingley 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oliver Moxon 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/Oliver Moxon 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Mitchell (barrister) 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/William Mitchell (barrister) 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harold Burge Robson 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/Harold Burge Robson 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashley Mitchell 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/Ashley Mitchell 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Rankin Rutherford 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/James Rankin Rutherford 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alistair Watson Bell 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/Alistair Watson Bell 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ifor Bowen Lloyd 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/Ifor Bowen Lloyd 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ronald Acott Hall 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/Ronald Acott Hall 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harry Hague 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/Harry Hague 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Arnold Baker 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/John Arnold Baker 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Beeching Frankenburg 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/John Beeching Frankenburg 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harold Arthur Guy 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/Harold Arthur Guy 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Herbert Kemp 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/William Herbert Kemp (2nd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maurice Alfred Gerothwohl 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/Maurice Alfred Gerothwohl 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Rowley Elliston 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/William Rowley Elliston 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Stuart Mowat 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/John Stuart Mowat 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Murray (Scottish politician) 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/David Murray (Scottish politician) 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reginald Logan Rait 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/Reginald Logan Rait 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Norman Clarke (physicist) 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/Norman Clarke (physicist) 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugh Emlyn-Jones 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/Hugh Emlyn-Jones 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Henry Harcourt 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/Henry Harcourt 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margaret Jane Joachim 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/Margaret Jane Joachim 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 notice from the top of the article. Uhooep (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]