Hi there. As you are a Charlton fan I was wondering if you'd like to contribute to the Scott Carson peer review, which is still open for comments. Myself and Malcolmxl5 have been working on getting the article towards Good Article standard. One question I have surrounds the end of season award won by Carson. This article on the official Charlton website says that the award is called the "Charlton Athletic Supporters' Club player of the year" award (as opposed to the "...fans" award), and I have referred to it accordingly in the Scott Carson article. If this is indeed correct are you happy if I apply the same correction to the succession boxes of Matt Holland, Darren Bent, Dean Kiely et al? I think it needs to be correct and consistent, that's all. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SE7 - There's some vandalism coming from your account, see One Man and His Bog. As your past history doesn't seem to fit with this, has someoen either hacked your account or a logged-in session? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to make the same comment. The edits are Ducan's Marsh, Claxton], One Man and His Bog edit one], One Man and His Bog edit two] and Diarmuid Ua Duibhne. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again on Jan 29 for this Darren Bent edit. Please secure your account, past edit history gets one by for a while, but sooner or later others may think a user has gone postal.
We realise it is hard being a Charlton fan, but hey, they had a win this week and are now only 3 games from escaping the relegation zone:-)--ClubOranje^Talk 10:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your account 'been comprimised, you should change your password. Just sayingResident Mario (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per our signature policy, your signature must have at least a link to either your user page or your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not follow policy, for signatures, as per this edit.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your IBPE due to concerns with your account, namely the vandalism, which is very recent and that even if it was another user if you are permanently back in control of your account. Once you demonstrate that, I might reinstate it. If it was you, then IBPE is not justifiable for someone who vandalizes. Hopefully, it was you inadvertently leaving your computer open and you can soon prove by no further vandalism that this will not happen again. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I direct you to this article's discussion page. It appears that the cite Chumchum7 brought up did not say what he claimed it said. It was not a US official denying the quotes made in the New Statesman article, but a US official denying 'questions had been asked' in an entirely separate State Department/Home Office meeting. The article also states the UK officials said that those questions had been asked.

I'm giving Chumchum7 the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he did not fully read the article he cited. --Barberio (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on John Rentoul (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~YellowFives 01:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. User:GowsiPowsi is listed as a member of WikiProject Cats, and redirects to you. I assume you are this editor then. I would appreciate your help in creating Canadian Cat Association, which is a request on the to-do list. Thank you, Brambleclawx 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit to Peter Robinson (politician), you used the following edit summary "removing POV statements".

That sounds great ... except that it is not what you did.

What you actually did was to remove the {{Fact}} tags on 3 unreferenced statements about Robinson's views, and add some unreferenced commentary of your own.

I have reverted your edit. Please do not remove {{fact}} tags on unreferenced material (unless you have added the references have been added), and please do not use misleading edit summaries. Sneaky edits are not a good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. User:GowsiPowsi is listed as a member of WikiProject Cats, and redirects to you. I assume you are this editor then. There is currently a discussion as to whether or not feline acne should be merged into cat skin disorders here. Your opinion would be valued. Brambleclawx 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting out my userboxes. I laughed at that Severus Snape one for hours. DMJohnston (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done that! =DDMJohnston (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SE7 -- thanks for your work on A Brief History of Crime, I've just tried to expand and improve it further. Let's discuss any outstanding issues on the discussions page. I hope that together we can create a good Wikipedia article on this subject. The next outstanding issue to me seems to be the synopsis. Best, Jprw (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your questions about 'Brief History' the book was definitely published in 2003, the confusion probably being caused by its retitling and republication as 'Abolition of Liberty in 2004. As for the reviews, I recall the New Statesman being reasonably fair. Bryan Appleyard's review was in the 'Sunday Times' not 'The Times'. I'll see what other mentions I can find. The fact that two chapters are missing from 'Abolition of Liberty' seems to me to be worth men tioning. I deliberately withdrew them (on the death penalty and gun laws) becuase of the absurd ad hominem David Rose review (for which he has since personally apologised to me) which convinced me that some subjects simply could not be rationally discussed in the current intellectual climate, and the threat to liberty was so important that I felt it better to sacrifice them. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again SE7. Unfortunately I don't have a hard copy of A Brief History of Crime so currently am not in a position to write a synopsis -- I should have explained better. Perhaps you might like to have a go yourself? Jprw (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I declined your speedies of John Sydney McCain 3 and John Sydney McCain III. Personally I disagree that they're probably unlikely typos, but more importantly R3 applies only to "recently created" redirects - which neither of these was - and "does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects". If you still think they need deletion I suggest taking them to WP:RfD. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, been extremely busy. Well I won't pretend to be happy about the design being used to talk positively about Foxe and Luther, but I'll let it slide. ;) Think I nicked it from somebody else to begin with, but I can't quite remember where. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Reliable Sources and WP:WEIGHT on using reliable sources and giving due weight to self-published sources such as Twitter and blogs. Rd232 ^talk 21:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

huh. If you have a conflict of interest re Young Britons' Foundation you should say so, not hide it. Rd232 ^talk 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page. Best regards, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional or frequent editor of the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 article, your participation in this discussion would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Sweet (band). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there SE7, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:SE7. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SE7. There's no need to replace links to [[Milwaukee, Wisconsin]] with [[Milwaukee|Milwaukee, Wisconsin]]. See also WP:R#NOTBROKEN. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing this again with Henry VIII. Please do see WP:R#NOTBROKEN. Kanguole 11:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Carl Barât. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask you again to use edit summaries with all your edits. Codf1977 (talk) 20:14, 1 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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Henry VIII (disambiguation), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Your reasons for deleting useful content from this article are extremely unclear. PatGallacher (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Innocent mistakeSE7^Talk/_Contribs 19:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTBROKEN there was no need for this edit, or any other similar edit that you where the redirect was to Henry VIII. Why did you make them? -- PBS (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for not doing so are given in WP:NOTBROKEN. Why did you make them? -- PBS (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary. I an considering reverting the edits, but before I do I wanted to know the reason why you made them so I can assess if they should be or should not be reverted. -- PBS (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it make it make Wikipedia more user friendly to alter Henry VIII to Henry VIII? -- PBS (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "sometimes-constant re-directs" mean? -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sill none the wiser what does "consecutive redirects" mean? -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see how it make it make Wikipedia more user friendly to alter Henry VIII to Henry VIII and how is Henry VIII a "consecutive redirect" (a term that means nothing to me). One major reason for leaving redirects in place is that we have a phrase in the Article titles policy that says "Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles)." It may turn out in the future that as there is no need to use a country dab extension on "Henry VIII" that in the future there is a discussion on whether to move the article from "Henry VIII of England" to "Henry VIII" because if fulfils the criteria "to which editors will most naturally link from other articles". Altering all the links from Henry VIII to Henry VIII hides that from the "What links here" survey. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our last exchange ended with:[1]

I guess I get it now. Thanks. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 12:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

so why did you make this edit on 6 July? -- PBS (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jonathan Isaby, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://conservativehome.blogs.com/resources/2008/12/introducing-j-1.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Isaby requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replied to your message about the Jonathan Isaby article on my talk page. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SE7. You have new messages at Tajasel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Please comment here for discussion about the possible addition of Phil Davison to the page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ConservativeHomeUSA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about 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. Under 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you have been doing a mass update of peoples place of birth which is most cases is not required (overlinking) or just down right incorrect. As an example Birkenhead is not in Cheshire it is in Merseyside. Also when you revert someone's edit can you please give a reason in the edit summary and not use the minor tag in this cases. If you are unsure of when to use the minor tag I suggest you read WP:Minor. Bjmullan (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have ignored the last message and have continued to make a very large number of edits again today which do not add any useful information or, worse, continue add unaccurate data. Please do not continue to do this. Cj1340 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While discussions take place I also feel it is inappropriate for you to continue with these mass edits. Bjmullan (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ceased precisely an hour ago. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 19:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall now be commencing a "mass edit" whereby I update the majorities of various MPs. This doesn't interfere with the above. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 19:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 10:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be honest with me man, because I've had depression and it hurts. Honestly, I've had the sleepless nights, lack of energy, loss of excitement, I mean, the works. When I see your tag saying you have depression, I want to know - are you for real? what's up? are you doing okay? and why feature it on your userpage?--Screwball23 talk 00:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just thought you might save yourself a bit of work by reading the section of the editing guideline WP:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken, which says that it's best practice if we don't change links to working redirects, like [[Charlton Athletic]], to pipe to the target [[Charlton Athletic F.C.|Charlton Athletic]]. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. DBD 18:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Spectator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruce Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments here are generating discussion. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2014 (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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]