Welcome!

Hello, Pahazzard, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wizard191 and thank you for the welcome!

Pahazzard (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! d5b4b7aae7832dc6a57cc09c1df74989

Nice work on the hillfort articles. Would you mind adding {{WP Archaeology}} to their talk pages as you make them? I think I've got all of them up till now, but I don't want any to slip through the cracks, and if you could do it in future you'd be doing me a big favour. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Joseph. I'll add {{WP Archaeology}} to future article talkpages (I did not know I could do that!) Pahazzard (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Anyone can, if they think it applies. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 20:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from myself also for the same, especially the hampshire hillforts, really good work :)Dwyatt 101 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Dwyatt, just a few hundred more to go! Pahazzard (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the image. It's always a good addition to car articles, I hadn't spotted that we now had one. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are most welcome! Pahazzard (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Dorridge Wood, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.solihull.gov.uk/parks/dorridgeparkanddorridgewood.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Dorridge Wood and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Dorridge Wood, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Dorridge Wood with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Dorridge Wood. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at Talk:Dorridge Wood saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! MLauba ^(Talk) 11:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that's really, er, helpful. I have suggested some revised text on the tempory page as suugested, please could you review this. I trust that it is now significantly edited from the originally referenced source to be acceptable? If it is perhaps you could insert the text into the original article so that I do not have to re-write the infobox, references, etc? Pahazzard (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your recent work on the Landmark Trust article. I'd been doing some tinkering in userspace the other weekend to create a draft list of LT properties with pictures (85% completed or so, I think) - a link to it is here. If you reckon it would look good in the article, I could move it over and we could potentially finish it off. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A yes, I had been thinking to develop this into a table of sorts, so may as well move this into the main article and work on it from there! It would be good to compare with other good list articles, such as for List_of_hill_forts_and_ancient_settlements_in_Somerset, formatting column sizes and standardising image sizes, etc, but I've not had much experience with tables myself, what do you think? Peter Pahazzard (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. An alternative format is the one at List of Castles in England. If you let me know which one you like, or if there's a variant you'd prefer, I'm fairly confident about the formatting now so don't might tweaking the draft table accordingly. (famous last words!) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc, I've looked at List of Castles in England as well, but slightly prefer the layout/formatting on List_of_hill_forts_and_ancient_settlements_in_Somerset, substittuting the sketch plans for images of course - if that's OK by you? Peter Pahazzard (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC) .[reply]

Sounds good. I'll take a stab at it tomorrow night if you like. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look out for that and will try and help you with the rest, Peter Pahazzard (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've mocked up the first few at User:Hchc2009/Sandbox3 as a test - see if that's what you're after. If it is, I'll convert the others into the same format. I've put "listed" down as a category instead of the Hill Fort number, thinking that perhaps we could put the I/II* listing detail in there. I don't have access to exact geolocation details for most of the properties, so we might ahve to go for simple town and county detail unless you've a potential source...Hchc2009 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! The first column "Site name, Alternative name" will work well for sites with multiple buildings, such as at Lundly Island, and Coombe. For sites with no coordinates, Google maps will give lat and longs when you right click on the map and select "what's here?", so we can fill in any missing ones no problem. Peter Pahazzard (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc, do you need a hand with the converting? I am not sure what wikipedia etiquete is re: editing someone elses sandbox!, Peter Pahazzard (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, was away on work. I'd welcome a hand! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the message. I'm happy to comment on the content & some MOS/layout issues but don't feel my writing style is that good. I often get articles look at by helpful copy-editors, such as User:Malleus Fatuorum, before nominating them, particularly at FAC, FLC etc.

Ladle Hill

• The WP:LEAD could probably be expanded to summarise the article, rather than just introduce or locate it.
• Is there a reference for the height?
• 7 acres & 170 ft diameter (as examples) should give a conversion unit (which can bhe done with the "convert" template used in the lead
• You give an Ancient Monument Number based on the old county scheme which is being phased out in favour of the national scheme listed on Pastscape (see [1], [2], [3], [4] & [5] etc)
• Feacham 1971 used in brackets in the first line of The unfinished hillfort should be formatted into a proper reference
• Magnetometer could be wikilinked (not everyone knows what it is)
• I'm not sure what "earthworks of intelligible character" means
• "features of interest" could be POV
• The geology section is unreferenced
• Some of the references need improving eg Refs 1 & 3 need full details, 4,5&8 could be formatted so that a title is displayed rather than the URL - I use Template:Cite web which handles this for you
• It is definitely not a stub any more so the stub templates could be removed

Scratchbury Camp

This seems the stronger of the two articles to me.

• The WP:LEAD could probably be expanded to summarise the article, rather than just introduce or locate it.
• In Etymology I'm not sure why the two sentences can't be combined into one paragraph
• In archeology you may get comments about pinching of text by the pictures on both sides
• The list of tumuli could be turned into proses with less one sentence paragraphs
• You have 3 sentences near the end of this section which are uncited.
• I'm not a fan of putting the full text of poems etc in - but that is probably just a matter of taste. If it is to be included it should probably use Template:Quote or similar for layout
• Some of the references could be improved by having full details (eg publisher) & a few eg The Megalithic Portal might be challenge as not meeting WP:RS.

Hope these comments make sense and are helpful. I think both articles are great bits of work so far & if I can help further let me know.— Rod ^talk 14:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, many thanks for that, very useful thanks, Peter Pahazzard (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pahazzard A discussion has been taking place at Talk:Southern England Chalk Formation and indeed at Talk:Chalk Group#Terminology:formations as regards the title and content of the former page. My concern has been that some authors have taken the title to imply that there is such a thing recognised (in geological terms) as the Southern England Chalk Formation, which there is not (though reference was made back in 1911 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica to a 'formation of Chalk'). The terms 'formation' and 'group' (in their geological sense) are often confused, not helped by the fact that what historically may have been a group may now be a formation and vice versa. If the article is attemtping to decsribe the assemblage of landforms which rocks of the Chalk Group give rise to then that's useful but it would be better re-named without the confusing 'formation' in its title - perhaps Chalklands of England as Pterre suggests? cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geopersona

I had not thought to look at the talk page - it all makes sense now! thanks Pahazzard (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right about Cold needing a reference to heat. "Having less heat" doesn't make sense in a physics context, but since physics doesn't of course have a monopoly on the word, I'll edit the intro to draw a distinction between the two meanings. -Anagogist (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - I agree that "having less heat" isn't perfect (I was going to come back to it with something better worded if you did not)Pahazzard (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pahazzard: Could you please explain in some detail just what is a "building services engineer"? Does it require university or other education or training? Does it involve any engineering design or is it all equipment operation and/or maintenance? Does it require a thorough knowledge of physics? Or mathematics Or fluid mechanics?

Is it mostly heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) work and electrical wiring systems for lighting and perhaps other miscellaneous electrical systems? In the U.S. most of the engineering design involved in those systems for a modern building would be done by the architectural company that designed the building. Such design would not normally be done post-construction by people whose primary function is operating or maintaining the HVAC and electrical systems.

I really would like to understand the role of a "building services engineer" in the U.K. mbeychok (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of questions and a big subject area! I'll try and answer as consisely as I can.

In terms of training it is highly recommended but not essential, although a lack of training will severely limit your career progression. In order to operate as an independant engineer one must be chartered, and for that you will need at least a BEng Honours degree and a Masters degree. That sort of studying will cover a lot of fundamentals, including for lots of maths, physics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, controls theory, dynamic thermal modelling, cable sizing, etc.

I myself work in the field of mechanical engineering, which is broadly HVAC, but also covers drainage, water services, refrigeration, and controls. Some engineers will specialsise, some may choose to broaden their fields of learning, expereince certainly helps. My conterparts will be electrical engineers who specilaise in electric design, lighting design, security and comms, CCTV etc; also environmental engineers who specialise in thermal modelling, natural ventilation studies, day light studies, CFD and BREEAM, etc.

I work for an engineering consultancy who specialise in all things to do with engineering in the construction industry, this includes for Building services, structural engineering, civil engineering, acoustics, fire engineering, transport, infrastructure, lifts, to name the major disciplines. We will typically (Full detailed design duties) work alongside an architect as part of the design team, which may also include for other civil and structural engineers (we cannot guarantee that we can secure the whole engineering commission on a single project), a landscape architect (if required), a fit out architect (if required), a project manager (if not the client or the architect), a quantity surveyor, a planning consultant, a CDM consultant, and there could be other project related specialist consultants.

Then there is design and build, where the Buidling services engineer and some or all of the aforementioned architects and other consultants may be employed directly by the main contractor undertaking the project, however the main contractor may want to put the building services the D&B route too, and in this case the M&E subcontrcator will undertake the building services design in house, or he may want to sub out the design to a consultant, again such as the company I work for.

So then, Building services in the UK can be a very varied field, and we can end up working for end clients, main contractors or sub-contractors, for more information a look at the CIBSE page will be a good starting point. I hope that this was helpful Pahazzard (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Nice job on Hydroelectricity in the United Kingdom! NortyNort (Holla) 11:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you ever so much! Pahazzard (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pahazzard. I was recently going over the above article and found that there was some duplication of http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=233041 in Wikipedia's article. It's an old issue, but I think in February 2011 it was you who introduced this material. Before your edits there was negligable similarity, but after there were some identical phrases. I've sorted out this article, the online version of the Victoria County History was particularly helpful in providing more details, so you don't have to worry about sorting out this instance but it's worth keeping in mind. Nev1 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nev, sorry about that, it's not the first time I have been picked up on it either! I'm really trying hard to improve my copy-editing skills. Thanks for the fixes. Peter Pahazzard (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the good news is that it's not a new example so I'm not saying your efforts aren't working. I do understand that there's a finite way of expressing a series of measurement and wanted to check you were aware of the issue. I double checked the articles on Kirby Muxloe and Ashby de la Zouche Castle and I'm happy to say they looked clear. Looking at those articles again reminded me of an aborted effort on Castles in Leicestershire, which I must get round to sorting out at some point. Nev1 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to maps in the info box of buildings, they present very little relevant information. As soon as you click on the map to enlarge it, the location disappears. It tells you nothing except , as you said, where Birmingham is in the West Midlands. If a person doesn't know the West Midlands, then this is irrelevant; if the do know the West Midlands, then they know exactly where Birmingham is, but the map will not help them drive to the cathedral.

Every cathedral, and most other significant buildings, have their geographic co-ordinates immediately under the picture and sometimes at the top of the page as well. One click will bring up a series of maps from which to choose.

When something within Wikipedia is very easy to cross reference, then there is no point in jamming in information that is better provided in another article. For example, if a historic name, (say Isaac Newton), is mentioned within an article (on say "Science"), then it is not usual to follow the name with life-span dates, unless the date is relevant within the text e.g. "Isaac Newton was born in 1642, the year that Galileo died." In the case of the location of a building, then the precise information is only one click away, (like the birth and death dates of Newton and Galileo) and is not provided by those generic maps.

One problem with the maps is that they greatly extend the info box down the right side of the page. When writing about a work of architecture, then pictures are essential. A dot on a map tells the reader very little about the work, but pushes down and greatly reduces the space available for illustrative material.

Amandajm (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem lies with the infobox terminology 'map', since they are not really a map, I would prefer the terminology 'location graphic', or something to that effect. You are entirely correct in that a proper map is only a click away from the article, whether your preference be a roadmap, OS map or aerial photo. But that is also the problem, it is a click away and not embedded in the article itself, and that is where the simple infobox 'location graphic' has its true value, because it might be obvious to those that know Birmingham, or the west Midlands, as to where it is located in the UK. Fine, if I had come from a Birmingham page link I might not have any need for the location graphic, but had I followed a link from somewhere else such as a list of cathedrals then it may have been of some value to me. And my preference is usually, if in doubt, to leave something in, rather than take it out.

I also agree that the infobox size with map can get rather cumbersome, especially for smaller articles, but an article the length of St.Philips Cathedral can certainly support it without issue.Pahazzard (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pahazzard, and welcome to the new Birmingham WikiProject. Thanks for your contributions. It's great to have you aboard. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:

• Outline of solar energy
• Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....

if you spot missing topics, add them in.

if you can, improve the descriptions.

add missing descriptions.

show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).

fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{Main}} links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: see also Outline of energy

OK, I'll have a look, thanks, Pahazzard (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you restored the flags to the Twin Towns section with the edit summary to omit them is removing potentially useful information to the reader. Which information would you say is being removed when we omit the flag icons? --John (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The country flag icon is an important visual reference to a country's identity. The pairing of a country flag and country name can act to provide positive reinforcement of the identitiy of the country to whom the flag belongs. Until this issue was raised (flagged up even! (sorry, couldn't resist)) in the Birmingham article I had assumed that this was the whole point of the mini flag icon, else why have them? Pahazzard (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean people will be unable to tell the country just from spelling it out in letters? --John (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the next time they see a flag in isolation they might recognise/remember the country it belongs to. Pahazzard (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might they? I suppose so. On the other hand, it might just impose a load of visual clutter on an article, unduly emphasise the nationality of these fairly inconsequential entries and leave our articles looking like trashy Top Trumps cards. Tell me, at a glance, which of these do you recognise and readily distinguish from each other? , , , ? --John (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

trashy Top Trumps cards, really? And confusing similarities between differing nations flags is not something I can do anything about. (It would be a rather interesting and unique situation if ever a city had such twinnings though.) So does the use of flag icons really add useful information to the Birmingham article? Barely perceptable perhaps given the wealth of other information contained on the page, but they do add more perhaps to the perceived quality and completeness of the article. Pahazzard (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So they are really just decoration then? --John (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not for decoration, which we both know is not a valid argument here, but for the reasons I have outlined above Pahazzard (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you made a very nice chart on the installed capacity and energy generated of renewable sources in the UK the 2011 figure are out now on the DECC website could you update your chart please :) (hello (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

thanks for letting me know - all done now! Pahazzard (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) (Master2k27 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Please see the talk page for Hay lot. There is a little confusion that I am sure you could easily clear up. Thanks. Chris the speller ^yack 02:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, now ammended Pahazzard (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pahazzard, thank you for the barnstar - I'm very touched. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having just looked at the Human embryogenesis page I agree that much of the material is already covered there and I will add to this where possible. I do think that one) the stage has a lot more detail that would warrant its own page and if not, two) there need to be a few redirects in place on different pages. Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, there is certainly a need to expand the Human embryogenesis article, (and this may require splitting up into separate more in-depth articles at some stage), and provide some redirects in the meantime. Best regards Pahazzard (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I have had another look at the human embryogenesis page and it seems that at least 90% of this is describing the germinal stage which is seen as a separate stage from the embryonic stage which begins after the second week of fertilization. There is very little here on the actual embryo formation which is more widely covered on the prenatal development page. Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your edit cauesed an url error. please write http... www.. and the exact webpage. thanks--Frze ^{> talk} 13:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out - now fixed Pahazzard (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your caption on Lola T210 picture says "1970 Lola T210 as raced at the 1970 and 1971 24 Hours of Le Mans, winning the 2 litre drivers title" where the wording "2 litre drivers title" (instead of "2 Litre Prototype title" for example) implies the title was for the drivers and not the car.

While I am not sure about ACO regulations at the time (before the inauguration of the Le Mans Series), I had the impression that while Fomula One was/is a competition among the drivers, most major sports car races in the past were competition among the cars (where drivers/constructors receive the honor on behalf of the car). I checked on 24 Hours of Le Mans article, but there seems to be no mention of it.

I might field this question in Wikiproject:Motorsport, but wondered if you had some insight on Le Mans awards of the time. Your help would be appreciated. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yiba, I got that information off of the display panel next to the car when I photographed it. The drivers title I assume means for the Le Mans series season, and not just the single race? I'll do a bit more digging! Pahazzard (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of digging showed up this on Lola Cars website: "Going back to Eric Broadley’s sports car roots, Lola had also set new parameters of excellence in the new 2-litre class, his open monocoque chassied T210 having taken northern rival Derek Bennett’s Chevron concern, which was still using spaceframe coupes, by surprise in 1970. European agent Jo Bonnier, a Swiss-based Swedish veteran, won the drivers’ title. Austrian Helmut Marko won it in 1971 with its successor the T212, helping Lola to the manufacturer’s crown." So it looks like the T210 won a series in the European 2-Litre Sports Car Championship, and not a class at Le Mans that year. I'll correct that image caption! Pahazzard (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to inquire about the Birmingham revision you did. I'm a 3rd party in this case as I have no connection to either you or the person who made the initial photo change, but who are the people who must make the consensus decision as to changes on the page? Are those only changes to the montage or all changes. I only contribute rarely and I've always wondered who decides what the pictures used in the montage. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomcrown (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phantomcrown. There is the makings of a discussion on the talkpage about the montage, and with that in mind there is no point in anyone being hasty and making changes to the montage until some sort of joint consensus is formed. I would assume that the normal course of action is to gather some comments and suggestions and then invite some sort of poll to decide the outcome. The consensus I assume would involve whomever regularly watches or patrols this particular page. Perhaps we should invite an administrator or two be involved to make sure that things are done fairly and without bias. I'm not up to speed on Wikipedia protocols for these sort of things, but I am sure that there is someone who will point out some pertinent guidance on this issue Pahazzard (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingfisher Country Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Cole. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on David Bucknall, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Compassionate727 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Bucknall 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 Bucknall 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. Tóraí (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

River Anker

added links pointing to River Tame, West Midlands and Tamworth

River Sence

added a link pointing to West Midlands

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pahazzard. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3),or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Cecily Herondale. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. It is extremely poor practice to seize upon new articles minutes after their creation by new editors -- here, no more than one minute later -- and tag them for deletion without giving the new editor a decent opportunity to complete their work. This does nothing to improve Wikipedia, but does serve to drive potential contributors away without good reason. Here, your actions were particularly poor, because you did not recognize that the article was about a fictional character and placed a deletion tag on it which is exclusively for use on articles regarding real people. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Big bad Wolfowitz. I did search and recognise the fictional character, but the article was no more than half a sentance; perhaps then I used the wrong speedy deletion tag. I did however make sure to leave a welcome note and a suggestion to 'draft first' on the new users talk page. Scaring people off editing Wikipedia is not my intention Pahazzard (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Delhi University Stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VRF. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just created my first page on Wikipedia and although it needs some more formatting and editing, I have a first request. The title of the article has a little spelling error. It ought to be Roopashree Jeevaji but I made a mistake by interchanging the "v" and "j". Please help me correct the name by moving the article. I have not been autoconfirmed so I cannot do that at this time. Also, do well to delete the "(actress)" beside the name as there is no need for that being that no other person has that name on any of wiki article. --Cleojason (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page name corrected, but I've left in (actress) as it could be helpful for searches Pahazzard (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Arya Gading from Indonesia.I makes articles Kancet Papatai .This article actually had a link, but perhaps there could not be opened because the server of Indonesia. But I'll change the reference to https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kancet_Papatai. If it still can not be opened, please let me know. Regards,--Aryagading2013 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aryagading2013. Not that sort of link, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, you will see it talks about how to add hypelinks to other wikipedia articles within the text. Kancet Papatai currently has no such links, and you can greatly improve the article by adding some, I hope that this helps Pahazzard (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grianan of Aileach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cashel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In British English at least, the single word "hillfort" is perfectly usual, normal, and acceptable. Random examples here, here, here, here, here... etc. (And your own user page!) If editors choose to use that word in articles, why change them? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghmyrtle, I've noticed that hillfort is a redirect, to hill fort, hence I thought that I would undertake the task of renaming wikilinks directly to that article, and invariably this has led me to amend other occurances in the same article where they occur. Of course you are correct in that hillfort (and even hill-fort) are all perfectly acceptable, but a wikilink to a redirecet is not good practice. (I had not got round to ammending my own user page, yet.) Please let me know your thoughts? Regards Pahazzard (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a stronger case could be made for renaming the article to hillfort - I see that suggestion was made in 2010 but not pursued. Certainly, I think the single word is at least as widely used as the two words, especially when discussing specific structures ("X... hillfort", not "X.... hill fort"), and in cases like this I also feel that the wording proposed by the editors who created the article should be given considerable weight. I don't see any particular problem with linking to redirects anyway. But, I think it would be better to rename the article itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Ghmyrtle. Personally I have no preference on either naming, but thought that it would be 'tidier' to match the links to the wiki page title (totally ignoring the time involved to rename all such links). I was not aware of the 2010 suggestion - I will desist any further edits in this regard until a consensus is reached. But how should this be moved forward? regards Pahazzard (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest either moving the article and see if anyone objects; or, proposing it first at WP:RM if we think a move would be contentious. If you are happy that the article title be changed, we have a consensus(!) of three editors, and I will move it. If that is done, it may then be necessary to undo the edits you've been making. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have no objections from me to rename the article, and I will undo the edits I have made this far. If that is consensus then I would be minded at some point to consider editing all wikilinks to point to hillfort as opposed to hill fort, or would you rather that preference still to be left with individual editors? regards Pahazzard (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either way. I'll move the article, and see if anyone objects. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Apparently it needs admin approval to move it, so I'll go through the WP:RM process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Thermal wheel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://ijarmet.com/wp-content/themes/felicity/issues/vol1issue1/amit.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pahazzard! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 22:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]