Archives

Archive 1

Hi Zangar, thanks for telling me about Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall, I have joined and will keep an eye on the Noticeboard.

I'm new to editing so may make some mistakes (like how to leave messages on Talk)...

Cheers, User:Wodderwick Wodderwick (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's good to have you on board! I'm away for a week or so, but feel free to ask me or on the WikiProject:Cornwall talk page for advice, and someone will hopefully help you at some point. Please have fun editing! (p.s. - by convention people usually leave new talk messages at the bottom of the page). Cheers, Zangar (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zangar. I've just got back to work after a weekend away on a stag do, ready to sit down and get on with sorting out the issues on stargazy pie. To my disbelief, most of them had already been sorted by your good self! Thanks so much for your help, I do appreciate it. Would be nice if we could get it all the way to featured, might put it in for a peer review later in the week, see what happens. Anyway, for now I'll see if I can finish off the good review. Oh yes, and as for the Wikiproject, I can't see it doing any harm. I've joined a couple of wikiprojects in the past, but I never really got round to doing anything on them. But I'll get my name down! Worm 10:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've finally got around to replying to you after a geographic relocation! Again, well done and thanks for all the good work! Zangar (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realise I'd done that. At least there's only a few articles for me to update. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All changed now. Have nominated the one with the typo as a speedy delection. Thanks again. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, tyops always happen! Cheers Zangar (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the talk page of the typo for speedy deletion as well Zangar (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that. Darn same name. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 14:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :) Zangar (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I shall be glad if you can join the discussion of the requested move of the article title of Murray MacLehose, of which you may be interested. --Clithering (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zangar Thank you very much for alerting me to the very useful option on the Whatlinks'ere tool. Thanks also for your endorsement for my efforts to simplify the qualifiers which become pretty horrendous to use when they consist of 8 digits and a non-standard character. It is even more difficult once articles have been created. I would have expected to have caught up with the links in due course but I can see there is a higher level of interest in Cornish MPs than in the rest. I hope you concur with my correction of the Lincoln link as I think the 5th earl would probably have been too young at the time. Best reards Motmit (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to have helped. That link is great, I think you're right. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zangar. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zangar

Leigh Rayment gives the dates for the Truro MP as 1 Sep 1649 - 23 Jun 1698 so he is not the same as the Royalist - possibly a son or one of the other branches. I will try to sort it out as I am still on topic with this bunch. This disambiguation project is getting a bit out of hand - we seem to be getting ridiculously long tag notes, and well meaning people with no knowledge of the topic area are making botched attempts at matching people up and disconecting links to dambig pages that are more useful than randomly generated redlinks. Thats today's winge. Regards Motmit (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job done - regards Motmit (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All quite bizarre - if you check back to the original entry for Baron John, you will see it was just a stub to say his wife wasn't who people thought she was! And now I have just remembered there is another John (of Duloe) who I might as well try to deal with. The Visitation of the County of Cornwall in the Year 1620 may help with the early one. Regards ~~

Hello, Could you take a look at the infoboxes of the East and West Cornwall constituencies (established by the Act of 1832). Until then the County had 2 knights of the shire, and 20 boroughs had two members each according to the rotten boroughs article. Would a map showing the boundary clarify this as well? The borough of Mitchell could be somewhere near the border I think.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Felix. No problem, I'll have a look over the weekend, if my new flat has had the internet installed. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: the West Cornwall one with just St Mawes as a preceding borough could not be right. Hope your moving goes well.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All moved now and with internet! (Although my arms are wishing we hadn't picked a top-floor place!) You're right about West Cornwall, I'll see if I can find a source/map for the preceding consituencies, as some of them may have been divided between it and East Cornwall. If I can, I'll ask Nilfanion if they can produce a map showing the two constituencies. I'll get back on to it after my wikibreak. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any information in sources showing the East/West Cornwall boundaries or which of the county constituencies incorporated the various disenfranchised borough electorates. I think this book, Cornwall politics in the age of reform, 1790-1885 By Ed Jaggard, would provide the answer but unfortunately the necessary pages are not in the preview. I see that Cornwall Library service has a few copies available, unfortunately that doesn't help either of us! Zangar (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. There is a map by William Jago included in the Cornish Church Guide (1925) which I thought might have given it but though "parliamentary division" has an entry in the legend the cartographer has not used this type of boundary on the map. However Samuel Lewis's Gazzetteer of England (1848) at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=445 looks like a good source of information. I have looked up Crantock which it says is West division so the boundary could be traced step by step southwards from there.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! What I can do is a search for "W. division of Cornwall" (and "E. division of Cornwall") within the publication, list all the places which fall into each division, try to get the co-ordinates for them and map them. A little bit of work, but should be doable and it'll be worth it. I'll try to do that when I have a little more time (I'm off down to Cornwall for the weekend in a bit). Thanks for finding that. Zangar (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this new website might help us with this once they've added the information for 1832 (coming "late this year"). I must admit, I haven't started the list yet, I might do that soon. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not ever urgent and the contemporary constituencies must need working on too. At least we have a general idea of the boundary line but that does not settle which parishes are to the west of it. The latest proposed changes must be stirring up a lot of opposition (cp. Salford is wiped off the parliamentary map). You must have got access to another computer since 14 days ago.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zangar I was going to say how much I liked your template - but then I noticed the Royal crest comes up for the protectorate parliaments which cannot be right. Sorry to raise this quibble but if I dont, Im sure someone else will. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wondered who would notice the mistake about that! Don't worry, I'd already thought about that - I was going to put a request into the graphics lab to create an image that has the half of that royal crest with half of an emblem/crest associated with the protectorate parliaments. Although I haven't been able to find any suitable emblem at the moment, any ideas? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found an image now - I ignored it at first because it had a crown in it and I thought it was a royal coat of arms! Anyway, I've put the request in now, so I'll use that one when it's been produced. Zangar (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be possible to put in a parameter switch to substitute the Protectorate arms over the default Royal arms for the the protectorate parliaments? As the caption for those Royal arms is to 1649, I wonder if there is a separate image for the Restoration? Regards Motmit (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be an idea, although this might also cause confusion to some readers when the list contains both royal and protectorate parliaments, but only displays one CoA (albeit the right one for the article), which is why I thought a split one may be better - what do you think? There is a separate image for the restored CoA - File:Coat of Arms of England (1660-1689).svg, but the only difference between this and the previous royal one is the swapping of the crowns between the lion supporter and the helmet, so I thought for ease not to add this to the split as well. Thanks, Zangar (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed up on your suggestion of using a conditional parameter for displaying the Protectorate arms, as the graphics lab couldn't help (I suppose it was a bit of an ask). Thanks for that! Zangar (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

with this editl with this edit how do you decide on the range of parliaments so to include? -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I didn't make the decision over the range. If you see in that edit I replaced a sidebar-type box that included links over the same range of parliaments. The original box was implemented with this edit

My aim was to consolidate the same box over the range of articles with a standard template, using the same range, to avoid mistakes which had crept in. I must admit, I also wondered why this range of parliaments had been chosen in the original boxes, but I thought I'd implement and roll out the new template, as it doesn't actually change the intended information. I'd support splitting/changing the parliaments range of this template, if we can think of a rational range. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I started with rolling sets of five in line with the Victorian parliaments. Someone else then decided to create a table with all of them in one and I have actually found this invaluable in the process of populating the lists. Once the work is finished that wont be an issue. I was becoming concerned anyway, because after 1601 is done I might want to create more. Another point you may query - the rather random order of constituencies per county reflects the sources, and although the plan is to alpha sort the boroughs I would rather do this after I have had a chance to do a final run through checking back on the sources. Regards Motmit (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall is very dear to me so over time I will gradually expand as many as I can. Yes, many of those I started a likely more hamlets than villages but "village" really can be used to described a small settlement. The intention was not really to create something useless but to provide a better coverage in the long term and build upon them. I think them being in the mainspace at least increases the chances of them being expanded by those of us who care. You could argue it would be better to create them start class one by one but I hate seeing red links!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you have deleted perfectly accurate information from a number of pages I edited? You may disagree with the content, in which case edit them. You don't have any justification for removing them. It's plain vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it's a matter of neutrality - please see the policy of WP:NPOV. The content you added was, yes factually accurate, but gave undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) to the voting on this bill, considering for virtually all Lords that you added this stock paragraph to had very little information on their career in the House of Lords, let alone any information on their previous voting habits or individual votes.

We also have to consider the notability of this information within a given article. Yes, the Bill and the reaction to it is notable (so can be considered to deserve its own article), but it is not notable for the Lords that you edited - These lords all voted with their party, so how is this notable? Do they normally have a habit of being rebels and this is the one time they went with their party whips? Remember Wikipedia is not a directory, we do not give a complete exposition of all possible details, nor do we give undue weight to individual ones. Putting this information into the articles on the individuals begins to WP:COATRACK them. Now, it might not be considered undue weight to list this on the rebel voters articles, the 3 Lib Dems and one Labour. Consider that I put a line in that Lord X had bacon and eggs for breakfast on 1 April 2011, which was referenced on the BBC website - yes this information is factually accurate, but it gives undue weight to this individual breakfast and has not been made clear whether this is notable for this Lord. Facts do not mean balance. Please see a discussion here about this where a rough concensus on this was garnered.

It is also noted that you have only added this information to some of the Lib Dem Lords that voted in favour of the bill, not any of the others (Conservatives, crossbenchers etc). This can be seen as, again, not being neutral to the facts (which are that 570-odd Lords took part in the vote), as only one section is being targeted and can lead to allegations of WP:SOAPBOX. The neutral way to deal with this is to either have this information on all the voters' article pages, none at all, or a summary in a separate article on the bill itself. So please, do not accuse me of vandalism, when I am just trying to adhere to wikipedia policy, as we all should. Zangar (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I added does not conflict with WP:UNDUE I understand the comment about the breakfast, but a vote is different; it impacts others and it is permanent. It would be entirely appropriate to put on a wikipage that someone had a habitual dietary preference that was permanent (e.g they always ate same thing for breakfast). If the section on these lords does not carry much other information about them, that is not my fault. If you apply this rule nobody will ever add anything about them. If you want to add information about their other activities I'm not stopping you. It is notable for several reasons: this is a historic vote that fundamentally changes the NHS in a way that is against Liberal Democrat election pledges. It is notable that these individuals voted with party lines rather than according to conscience (the Lords is generally unaffected by whips). Particularly so in the case of FB, who cites health as a particular interest. Would someone wanting to find out about Baroness Benjamin or Paddy Ashdown be suprosed that they voted in this way? I was, and I think others would be too. So, it seems completely right that others should be able to see this specific piece of information. I have only added this information to a small number of pages, because I don't think it is appropriate for me to add it to all of them. I would like to, so I will if that would satisfy one of your criticisms. If other people want to do that, then it is fine. It IS vandalism to remove factual information rather that is accurate and or note, rather than to edit it, and I resent the implication that you have some sort of moral high ground. You don't; you just want to edit this to remove a comment that you don't agree with. Rondoggy (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'll answer your comments with bullets below, just for ease of reading.

• Yes a vote is different to breakfast as it is permanent (until the next person comes along with a new vote that undoes a previous one...) but there are hundreds of votes every parliament, not just one. Hence one case of WP:UNDUE.
• It's not your fault that the articles don't contain much info about their Lords past, but it is inescapable that your inclusion of the stock paragraph does upend the balance and neutrality of the articles.
• Your entire discussion about notability of the individual votes is substantially subjective, which to be fair these arguments are most of the time, but wikipedia policy or guidelines are not even considered. To say a single vote is historic while it is still a current event is a little counter-intuitive and as a justification comes across as WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Lords are affected by their whips, as can be seen in many previous votes in both this parliament and the previous, where Labour and Conservatives vote in near-total polarisation and the Lib Dems vote as a near-total block (see PublicWhip). Your assertion that "individuals voted with party lines rather than according to conscience" is highly subjective. Firstly, who can say what their conscience decided and secondly you appear to be stating that their consciences were diametrically opposed to their vote, sounding like a political WP:SOAPBOX argument.
• Being "surprised" or "interested" in a piece of information is not reason for inclusion/deletion of that material (I know this as I have fallen foul of this myself when I was a new editor), as it is purely subjective. (Please see WP:Interestingness and WP:INTERESTING). I'm not saying that the information on the vote is not notable, I'm just saying that individuals votes are not, seeing as there are many Lords that vote on many issues, many of which can be perceived as "important", "historic" or "interesting" in their own right by different people.
• The fact that with all of your edits regarding this focus on one vote for a very small number of individuals inherently breaks the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. As you say this could be rectified by adding entire voting habits (~1000+) of all (570+) Lords, an inordinate amount of work; but common sense would lead us to achieving this by putting any information in one individual article pertaining to that vote or bill, so no Lord is given undue attention, or that content is not given undue weight within that Lord's article. Luckily this article exists at Health and Social Care Bill 2011.

But, I see that you would like to discuss this further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Voting patterns, I think this is the best place for such a discussion, to get a consensus. And can I please ask you again not to accuse me of vandalism for using wikipedia policy and guidelines to describe to you the reasoning behind my actions, this is uncivil behaviour to another editor. Pointing out the rules is not a moral high ground, it's helping guide the way we should all conduct ourselves. Zangar (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to discuss this whole issue, because it does seem to be a very difficult subject to cover in wikipedia. I am keen to take a wider view of it than just the vote on the health reforms, because looking across wikipedia there is a dearth of useful information on politicians. However, you also need to see someone else's point of view. You have accused me of all sorts of things, posted hostile tags in my talk page, summarily deleted information from pages and brought comments about what you interpret as a personal dispute into a public discussion. None of this is promotes discussion, and it needs to stop.Rondoggy (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Please provide examples of what things I have accused you of, what "hostile tags" I have posted on your talk page and how I have "brought comments about what I interpret as a personal dispute into a public discussion". Zangar (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zanger in connection with your observation at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)/archive1 I think its now fixed (at least on my browser) would you mind checking to see if your still seeing the problem.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all checked and fixed. Good spot to fix that! Cheers, Zangar (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For you and the other editors at Bible translations into Cornish, superb, and completely unexpected. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You did a great job in starting that article, I wouldn't have even thought about such an article unless you had started it! Cheers, Zangar (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Future election articles about articles on future local council elections which you may be interested in. Davewild (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your contributions to the article. I have added some more information from the ODNB entry on George Howson. I hope it satisfies the criteria at WP:DYK now and someone is moved to approve it in time!

You might also like to look over the articles on George Arthur Howson and Jack Cohen. -- Ferma (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Template:Did you know nominations/Poppy Factory; I've reviewed it and noted a couple of issues. Letting you know so you can fix them; should be a quick fix. Assuming you have computer access of course! I understand the urgency and in fact I'd like to see this go up tomorrow, the 11th; I'll check in on it later and if necessary make one of the suggested changes myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had it on my list for when I got back from work - it's proving a busy day but I've now moved it to the holding area for November 13 and updated the section at WT:DYK. It may still get lost in the fog of debate there and/or the preps for that day may be put together by someone who doesn't think to check; if you see that they have been assembled without it, check the history and ping whosever did them. I think it's entirely justifiable to have this one go up on one of the two days and it was nominated in time. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)re:[reply]

Cheers Zangar. It is more annoying than usual because I have set up Feltham and Heston by-election, 2012 as a ready made article when we have a date or candidates. It's pointless having the 2011 article because it won't be called for this year. Knee-jerk editors are the worst kind! I will have to stand down from this, really, because of 3RR. It's very frustrating. Thanks for looking out for me, though, I appreciate it. doktorb _words^deeds 16:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I've run out of reverts as well. I'd say we can give it to tonight for people to go to the discussion, where a definite consensus seems to be forming, and then if these reverts are still going on, we can probably seek "higher" assistance. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! After all that reverting it looks highly likely that it'll be moved tomorrow (the Labour selection timetable seems to corroborate this). I can't think what to do with the 2012 re-direct page (other than re-direct it to 2011, I guess?!). Now for the fun of collating candidature information in such a small timeframe! doktorb _words^deeds 15:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good spot with finding that post! I think the best thing to do is to wait until definite confirmation that it will be in 2011 and then maybe nominated the redirect for RfD (as I'm not to sure it could be classed as a typo or misnomer). Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciated your comments about improving the presence of portals on Wikipedia, particularly the notion of including featured portals on the main Wikipedia page. This would be a useful improvement to Wikipedia. If more viewers become aware about the existence of portals, the likelihood of increased user contributions to them would increase. I've started a new discussion with a specific focus upon increasing portal visibility on the portal discussion page here: Wikipedia talk: Portal - Ideas to increase portal visibility. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 10:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Widely What? --BjKa (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm? I think you want User:Mecanismo, they added the structural steel link. I made the previous edit. Zangar (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, of course you're right. Sorry. --BjKa (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For your dedicated work on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cornwall Thank you! – Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 04:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate it. It's been quite a fun process. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think it's more interesting when you work through your local area's SSSI list. You read about SSSIs that you didn't even know about or might even have been to, unaware of its importance... a lot of picnic sites and country ponds we like to visit in the country are in fact of scientific value, part of the true British countryside. It's nice to know that there are all these safe SSSI areas, along with AONBs and National Parks, scattered all over the country. As long as we can keep the bloody capitalists and builders off, and stop the government selling forests and green land, it's all good! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 08:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your lovely work on Caerthillian to Kennack. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated! It's good to see people are reading it. Zangar (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Godrevy Head to St Agnes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! bamse (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you're recent edits on the 17 July Revolution and Ba'athism pages. Question, seeing that you're fixing my to often awkward grammar, could you check out the History of Iraq (1968–2003)? Of course this is not a must. If you do decide to check out, remember that the article is still a work in process. Even so, thanks for you're edits. :) --TIAYN (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems! I was mainly going through the to check for paraphrasing for the DYK nomination so I might go through Ba'athism again for grammar in that case. I'd be happy to check History of Iraq (1968–2003), I'll try to do it a little later once you've done a bit more structuring/expanding.

If you feel like it, would you be able to look at the parties within Category:Ba'athist parties? As I found some of the articles a little confusing with unnecessary overlapping information (especially between the Iraqi and Syrian factions' articles). I'm also thinking that Arab Ba'ath Party can be merged into Ba'ath Party in the history section and made into a redirect, what do you think? Thanks for dropping by! Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply...

Thanks, the majority of the work will be finished by, at least, Wednesday next week.... I can take a look at the Ba'athist parties - i'll probably merge the majority of them (with the exception of those who have seats in a legislative body) to the Ba'ath Party (Iraqi-led faction) or Ba'ath Party (Syrian-led faction), some others I will expand, probably very slowly, such as Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region article. I don't know if the Arab Ba'ath Party article should be merge, it all depends on how much information there is out there on the subject. I'll will at least try to expand it before a possible merger of the article. Again, thanks for you're help :) --TIAYN (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the Arab Ba'ath Party article, but not to the Ba'ath Party article... I redirected it it to the Zaki al-Arsuzi article. --TIAYN (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EncycloPetey (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 08:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Safiel (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the hook. I guess that it isn't that interesting to DYK reviewers since it sat there since December 24. SL93 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, glad to help! I like to get earlier ones closer to promotion and there was no reason for it to have been sat there that long, it was quite an interesting article. You may want to be aware that you can always use the template {{subst:DYK?again}}, which produces a , to alert other editors that you want a re-review of a nomination. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Normandy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Norman history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Norman language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The content of these pages do not belong in the Project namespace, they are essentially copies of the leads from their main namespace equivalents. These seem to have been recently created from red-links on Portal:Normandy for desired WikiProjects, but I have contacted their creator and they do not appear to have the desire to actually turn these into real WikiProjects. Zangar (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very quick to say I have no desire to actual turn these into real WikiProjects. It was only two days ago that you mentioned this to me. I happen to work 5-6 days a week, and I need a little more time to get the WikiProjects underway. You could at least give me until the end of the month. Thank you!--Iberville (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but all I wanted was a quick reply/indication from you to say that you were going to do this in the near future (I didn't expect you to actually do it overnight). It's just that you never replied, even though you had logged in, edited and would have seen my comments before I put this to MfD. Anyway, I would be fully supportive of you turning Wikipedia:WikiProject Normandy into a project, but can I advise that you take User:Kleinzach's advice and propose it at WikiProject Council, as no doubt you would get more support and interest this way - beneficial all round. Hope that helps, cheers, Zangar (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Really appreciate your work on the Cornwall SSSIs Zangar!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Only a few left to do now. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - Thanks for help with Monmouthpedia article on Mr Rolls - copyeditors make me appear as if I can write decent prose! Victuallers (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zangar - could you be tempted away to find an SSSI near Monmouth? :-) Victuallers (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to MonmouthpediA .... are there any sssi s in the area? Victuallers (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I thought I'd take up your invitation for the Monmouth SSSIs. There are 61 SSSIs in the county of Monmouthshire - some of those sites may already have articles as they were part of the previous Areas of Search (before the local government restructuring), but can no doubt be expanded. What's the scope the project - will all SSSI articles for the county be included, or is it just the ones in the direct area of Monmouth town? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zangar, thought you might want to know about a discussion that's going on about the Floella Benjamin article. You and I both deleted the same material which the original contributor (an IP editor) put back both times. You might not have been aware of his/her objection, because the IP editor put it on his/her own talk page instead of yours. :) But I've now opened communication in the proper place on Talk:Floella Benjamin, feel free to drop by if you want to weigh in. Thanks! ~ Kimelea (talk) 10:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zangar, starting to push the Charles Rolls challenge. We should have quite a few Monmouth DYKs on the front page tomorrow - and have you seen the news about the wifi! Could you sign up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA/Charles_Rolls_Challenge/Points if only to wencourage others :-) Oh and thanks for your support! Do you live close enough to come to the party? Victuallers (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Great Wheal Fortune at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Ishtar456 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I added some details of the MPs whose constituencies include Chorlton-cum-Hardy. There are two wards now: Chorlton and Chorlton Park (which approximates to the the former Barlow Moor ward). Some time in the 1970s the Manchester Moss Side constituency (in which Chorlton ward was included) was changed but a good source is needed for the boundary change. It is complicates by the fact that the ward boundaries are not made to define the contents of the article. Could you advise on this?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zangar, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right 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! —Tom Morris (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Cornwall Barnstar
	For your extensive work on localities in Cornwall which makes wikipedia a more valuable, better quality, resource. Keep it up! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Great to know the work is appreciated. Thanks again, Zangar (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you know this, but it got pulled off of the main page. Please see the comments from user: materialscientist on the template.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about this - I'll comment over there. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've not had time to look in any detail at the fixes. Maybe you could give an indication of the relative proportions of articles that now fall into each of the categories? Certainly your reasoning seems sound, and I wouldn't want to stand in the way of this artcile attaining FA status. SP-KP (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. That sounds like it's just what I was after. Good luck with the FA nomination. SP-KP (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Computer death has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Monmouthpedia thanks you for your many contributions - sorry to here of "personal issues". However you can?? keep an eye on the points page as we will be announcing how you can watch the web stream. We have had to postpone the launch because we need the new Monmouthpedia Wifi to be in place to show off your work to people in Monmouth. If you can add your Skype name to the points page then that would enable us to contact you. We are intending to have a second phase of this competition but we wanted to make sure we kept to the deadline we had published. This will be the world's first Wikipedia town with your help Victuallers (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by. I'll be spending the day with family for my niece's 3rd birthday on the Saturday, so won't be able to watch the stream I'm afraid, but I wish you guys all the luck with the day! Is there a plan to post key points from the meet/web stream as a video later at all? As I'd be interested in that.

Thanks for the concern, hopefully I'll be back editing in the near future, once I'm more sorted in real life. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reminder about m:Meetup/Monmouth/1 on Saturday, as requested. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain me this edit? It's a template (in template space), correct, but it is a template for project use only (so not considered for the mainspace). mabdul 10:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially I'm following the top-level main guideline for assessment, which states that "Any template falls under [the template] class". Also the WP Cornwall assessment guidelines don't over-rule this and state that the project class is "for project pages" and a template isn't really a page. I was also following an assessment convention that other WP barnstars follow, such as: this, this and this template. Hope this clears things up. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rolls Challenge, Silver Contributor

For your efforts in contributing articles to the Monmouthpedia project, you were one of the top 15 contributors in the Charles Rolls Challenge, Thank you! We're pretty sure Monmouth is the best documented town in Wales, in many languages probably the best in the world. We've started a new competition, The Geoffrey of Monmouth Challenge, please tell people about it and feel free to enter yourself :) Please email your address to john.cummings@monmouthpedia.org so I can send you your prizes Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talkcontribs) 18:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	WP:Globalization
	Wikipedia:WikiProject_Globalization has been created! Be sure to sign the participants section! Meclee (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Fiddler's Elbow National Nature Reserve at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Maile66 (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Pentwyn Farm Grasslands at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Rosiestep (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you from the DYK helpers and Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having written the King Arthur's Cave article and some others in that area, thanks for this article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found it a very interesting SSSI to write about and the King Arthur's Cave article helped greatly! Cheers, Zangar (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, There is a fault with the map of towns which makes Launceston appear much further west than its true position.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good spot! Thanks for that, I've fixed it now, the longitude numbers were muddled. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Geoffrey of Monmouth Challenge, Gold Contributor
	For your efforts in contributing articles to the MonmouthpediA project, you were one of the top 5 contributors in the Geoffrey of Monmouth Challenge, Thank you! We've started a new project, GibraltarpediA, please have a look. Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Also please message your address to john.cummings@monmouthpedia.org and your prizes will be sent out as soon as the tshirts have been printed

		Monmouthpedia Barnstar
		Thank you so much for all the work you have put into Monmouthpedia, we really appreciate it very much :) Mrjohncummings (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might like to join a centralised discussion at Talk:Site of Special Scientific Interest#Welsh SSSI lists. SP-KP (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Important Plant Areas in the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I hadn't actually. I didn't realise 2013–14 will be our 100th season as a professional club, so I checked here and it is. I'll be honest and say that it needs a lot of work since I've barely touched it for three years. MOS, etc has changed a lot in that time and, sadly, there are plenty of errors in there too (goals, sources estimating attendances and different ones giving different figures, so they'd probably need to go). It is on my to-do list. Finding the time and the will is the hard part. Walls of Jericho (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see what I can do over the summer. Walls of Jericho (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently marked Datagram as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Measurement article. Doesn't seem like a measurement-related topic to me but I guess I have to admit I'm not familiar with WikiProject Measurement. ~KvnG 15:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right - I read the article quickly and saw that datagram is described as a "unit", but it's not really a unit of measurement. So feel free to remove the WikiProject tag. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~KvnG 13:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your contributions, I have though undone your reversion as you are reverting to a version which is not standard practice. The standard practice is not to include middle names or any bolding in results boxes. The winner is simply identified by being the top candidates for how ever many seas there are. If you would like to discuss why you believe middle name. bolding etc should be included please feel free to do so. Many thanks Sport and politics (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. My main reason for including the full name of the candidate in the election boxes is that generally we can't be fully sure whether the names in the middle are actually Middle names or are parts of non-hyphenated surnames, such as the case with Ralph Vaughan Williams (I think also non-hyphenated first names may exist as well). So as the elections returns, or information on the council website are the only accurate and verifiable way of determining the correct name of a candidate that would probably not be mentioned by another source, due to the fact that they are standing for the lowest tier of government, I thought it best to leave the names in full. Although I do see for parliamentary constituencies, as with your example, it is probably best to omit middle names as the candidates are a little more well known and would be mentioned in other sources.

I also tend to use the Template:Election box winning candidate with party link template for councils that have multi-member electoral districts, which Cornwall does, as it makes it a lot easier to identify how many candidates could be elected and which ones were. Although I do concede that Cornwall has only 1 such district, so we could just use the template for that one and not the other single-member districts?

But I'm not too sure there is a "standard practice" for bolding and middle names - I know you tried to raise this in an earlier discussion at WP:WPUKPOL, without responders (sorry, I was inactive on the wiki at that time, so could not participate). But there are quite a lot of pages out there that do use middle names and/or bolding, such as Bolton Council election, 2012 and from what you've seen in your work. But I do think it's a good idea to get some sort of standard/guideline in place for UK local government, so perhaps it's worth resurrecting your question? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restarted the discussion. I would also like to draw attention to this page from Cornwall Council list of all members. Sport and politics (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll participate in that discussion shortly. I tend to use that list of members for the current composition of Cornwall Council, as it captures the defections and by-elections since the election. In the meantime can we agree a compromise on the Cornwall Council election, 2013 article, that I'll use the full name of the candidates, but not bold the winners except in the multi-member district? And then we can take appropriate action once a consensus has been reached in the discussion (it's far easier to remove the the "middle names" at the end, rather than trying to reinsert them). Cheers, Zangar (talk)

I think the issue surrounding bolding is solved simple by the gain/hold/win at the bottom as the number of seats up will be shown and the party who won the seats will be show there. I am not sure Wikiepdia is for pointing out non-notable individual people who won seats i think Wikipeida is more for the notable information such as the arty which won the seats. Sport and politics (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zangar, I notice that you recently carried out a quality rating for the article Bodmin by-election, 1922 on behalf of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and that you rated it as 'Start'. I have been one of the more recent contributors and following my most recent contribution, felt satisfied enough with the state of the article. As you know, the 'Start' rating applies to an article that "lacks adequate reliable sources" and also "needs substantial improvement in content and organisation". I am keen to improve my contributions and would be grateful if you could tell me please how one might address these two points better. Graemp (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graemp. Thanks for your post and thanks for your work! I must admit, I didn't alter the quality assessment - I assumed my original quality assessment was recent and not actually over 3.5 years ago! There's been a lot of good work since then, so I've upped it to a C-class.

Looking at the assessment of B-class I don't think the article quite follows the "3. The article has a defined structure" criteria, perhaps the sections and information before "Result" could be organised in a better way: perhaps using sub-sections and don't be afraid to merge information. I'd also like to see a longer lead in a B-class article, summarising the information within the article itself (don't worry about references there, as long as they're in the rest of the article). There currently aren't any GA-class UK election articles, so I'm reluctant to comment beyond the B-class.

So keep up the good work! And please feel free to join WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your re-asses and feedback. I'll tweek the article a bit, however, I don't think the content is sufficiently substantial to merit a B in my view. Graemp (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. Although don't be to concerned about length, see United Kingdom Election Results, which is GA-class. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zangar,
I posed a question at Template talk:WikiProject status#Adding types and I noticed that you had answered some questions there so I'm hoping you could fill me in on if it is possible to introduce new "types" in order to sort inactive WikiProjects. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zangar,

In the light of a paragraph that you sent to Jowan-yn-Pensans before I researched into whether Helston was a port before the bar formed, I need to mention that it is documented that Helston was a port in the 13th century; also in around 1700, from an etching, Loe Bar was a mere beach with a small triangle extending into the pool. What I am looking for is one proven evidence from geomorphologists to counterbalance what I have witnessed and has been proved by others as to the formation of Loe Bar before the 13th century. Soon I shall dig away some sand from the Chyvarloe lane that seems, only seems - until I have had it attested - to finish off under part of the Bar toward the sea. Until then I shall not add any further edits to the River Cober or Loe Bar sites. The name, "Loe Bar" is late Cornish, and the earliest recorded version by Padel of the pool is "La Loo" in 1337. It certainly existed well before then, but if before the 1200s it would have had an older Cornish spelling. Currently no one has come forward with any evidence whatever to substantiate the visible existence of a bar there before the 13th century; and there is no satisfactory evidence for supposing that King Arthur's sword was thrown into that pool. It could hardly have existed unless deeper than the sea beyond, since remnants of the same forest that pervaded Mounts Bay before the 28th September 1014 have been witnessed some 30 feet deep under the bottom of Helston.

Kind Regards, Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)AndrewWerdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 15:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Computer death has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zangar. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cornwall – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 9. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 11 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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the articles about Rock-Olga and Helene Ripa. Any help with improvements etc are welcomed. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Belize political party shortname templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zangar! 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 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 7 § Category:Buildings and structures by decade of destruction on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 17:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zangar: Good Day! Just a few statements to explain how evidences of Helston harbour and port have evolved. Before 1834, the Helston cattle market was situated at the site of the Gryll's memorial at the foot of Coinagehall Street. Before that time in an 1820's account, the prior existence of a port was regarded as very dubious. The 1815 painting clearly depicts the harbour wall extending to where the road is now (being but a path then); and within that wall can be seen vegetation from the silt built up inside. This silt that became earth was built up over the centuries in the Nansloe valley area to a depth of up to 7 metres. So, when digging for the foundation of the gasometer in 1932, a huge tower of water gushed out from the subterranean reservoir of remaining water and ship's timber was cut through in the process. Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]