User talk:Bogbumper

The April 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 15:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 06:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you introduced the sentence: "This species [i.e., the

Hi Bogbumper! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Northamptonshire has now been created. If you wish to help out improving articles relating to anything in the county, please don't hesitate to go to the page and sign up!--Kudpung (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Newsletter delivery by –

^talk 02:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Bogbumper! A Top Priority article you have been involved with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Northamptonshire, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. (This is a generic message. if it has been placed on your talk page inadvertantly, please ignore it.) --Kudpung --Kudpung (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Another Cambridge meetup is set for the afternoon of Saturday 14 November. Please contribute to the page and come along if you can. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katie, good luck with the Sparrowhawk GA. I won't review it myself because I've made too many edits to it to be considered neutral, but it looks pretty good. Any plans to take it to FA eventually? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a map caption. I looked at the images, and a couple may be problematic. It isn't obvious to me that the blue tit is GFDL, and the collared dove uploader appears to differ from the author. I ran dablinks and checklinks, no problems at all there Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ever called Northern Sparrowhawk? I'm not sure whether it's a requirement at GA, but at FAC the units will need imperial conversions for the poor old yanks. Similarly, there are some problems with the refs. On-line versions of real journals do not need an access date, since they are unchanging, but web links like the BTO page need a publisher, even if it's obvious. There are also some inconsistencies in formatting. I'd recommend using citeweb, citejournal and citebook templates, which guarantee consistency, but they are not obligatory. Again, I'm not sure whether consistency of referencing is needed at GAN. If you intend to push this to FA, a much bigger hurdle, make that clear if you can when you have a GA reviewer. Some reviewers will give comments to indicate what they think needs to be done for FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments... It's the first article I've really done a huge amount with, so it's all a bit of a learning experience for me. I haven't thought about FA. I'm sure there's lots that could be improved (I realised that I haven't mentioned vocalisations at all!); I've got a copy of Ian Newton's The Sparrowhawk monograph out of the library but have yet to delve in! It'll be interesting to see what other people make of it. I was considering changing using templates for all the refs (not something I've done before) so perhaps I should do that. Bogbumper (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone through the alt text, but you might want to check or improve. Alt text is to describe the image to a person with sight problems via their text reader. It should not repeat the caption, add information which is not in the image (eg the location of the wood) or use words like "image of". It should just describe the picture.

OK, thanks for that guidance. Clearly I didn't *get* alt text on my first attempt. I'll know better next time. Bogbumper (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I sometimes do, as in Ruff is to separate the books as References, and leave web and journal sources under Notes. For books you can then put eg Hayman (1986) p. 29 as the ref, which will obviously appear in the Notes section. Alternatively, you could retitle your References as Notes, just put Ian Newton's book as the Reference section, and reference the separate pages in Notes. I think that is reasonable because it is obviously the major standard text for this species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. For now, I've changed 'References' to 'Notes' and put Newton and HBW in References (those are the two books from which I needed to cite separate pages). Would it be preferable to put all the books under References, as you suggested (which would take a while longer) or will I get away with what I've done?! Bogbumper (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why the current scheme shouldn't work, and if your reviewer comments, you have the other option as plan B Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katie, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed as well as you have for such a long time hadn't already been approved as an

Thanks very much; I didn't even know such a thing existed!! Bogbumper (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Autoreviewer is a relatively new system, it was started in June this year, though it had an informal predecessor. I suspect that quite a few ofour contributors are unaware of it, which is why I've started checking out people like you who create the sort of articles that leave me wondering why those articles are not already marked as patrolled. ϢereSpielChequers 17:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bogbumper! A non-British user seems to be attempting to suggest that the Brits are not pronouncing their own British place names correctly, and appears to believe that it is a policy of Wikipedia to instruct the Brits, through the use of the

Hi Bogbumper: Sorry for the long delay in finishing your review! I think you're mighty close. The only thing I'd ask you to do before I give you the GA is expand the lead a little bit. It's supposed to be a brief summary of the major elements of the article, and right now it doesn't do that. (I've put a few things I think you should add onto the GA review page.) I won't ask for anything else, as this is already WAY past what many GAs are. (I've been nosing around, and have decided I've been far too picky; I think I've been pushing it towards FA — and it's close to being there!) hope you don't mind that I've done some tweaking on the prose. Feel free to change things back if you think I've made things less clear or otherwise changed the meaning of what you'd written. MeegsC | Talk 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MeegsC. Thanks for your reply - I was more worried that people were waiting for me to do something, but I wasn't sure what! You're quite right about the intro; I'll get onto that in the next couple of days. So do we go for FA next...? Thanks. Bogbumper (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! MeegsC | Talk 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

You are listed as a member of

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

]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bogbumper just to let you know some Northamptonshire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release (which I never herd of until today). It can be seen here. It just advises to make some Northants articles better and I'm currently working on Northamptonshire/Kettering which is coming along nicely, but help would be appreciated, best Likelife (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Why have you deleted my photo File:Eurasian Sparrowhawk.JPG from Russian areal of distribution? --Владимир Шеляпин (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Владимир Шеляпин. I removed it from the page for a couple of reasons. It doesn't show anything new - there's already a photo of a juvenile Sparrowhawk on the page. Also, we don't have room for a photo from each country, so it doesn't matter where it was taken. Hope you weren't offended, but I see you've reinstated it anyway... Bogbumper (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bogbumper, i've reinstated photo only after 5-day waiting of your answer. I just would like to illustrate the words "it can be seen in gardens and in urban areas". If you look at the coordinates, you can see that it was sitting 20 meters from the five-story building. It is curious, is not it? --Владимир Шеляпин (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the late reply, but I don't log in to Wikipedia every day.Bogbumper (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!
	Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Sarah (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Bogbumper. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Hello, Bogbumper. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]