Doops

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
• Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
• When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
• Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• If you need help, post a question in the Newcomers' Village Pump or ask me on my talk page.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Hi, Doops,
On the John Winthrop disambiguation, you need to remember that links are case-sensitive in Wikipedia. Usually "Disambiguation" isn't capitalized, so you may want to move it to John Winthrop (disambiguation) - Nunh-huh 22:34, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Anyway, I've never heard of a rule that states that you shouldn't "follow a verb by a colon." After all, people often write something like:

This list includes:

• Item A
• Item B

(If you respond, do so on my user page, as I may not be monitoring this page.)

--Lowellian 22:37, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Doops,
I think moving Mixed-style date to double-dated year would be fine. As to how to show confusing dates in encyclopedia articles, it's a good question. One way we've done it in the past was with "January 13, 1746 (O.S.) (= January 24 (N.S.))" and other variations, like making the "repeat" date smaller: "January 13, 1746 (O.S.) (= January 24 (N.S.))" (this was from Sweden, where double-dating wasn't an issue....) I'd say there may be better ways to do it, but it would take some experimentation! -- Nunh-huh 00:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you think we should merge New Forest and New Forest National Park? I know that the Park won't cover the entire forest, but it seems a little odd to have two seperate articles about it. Morwen - Talk 18:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, you say that, but before today, there was no article about the Yorkshire Dales! I moved it from Yorkshire Dales National Park - which was quite absurd place for it to be. I think we should have a presumption to merge, unless there are strong reasons for not. Morwen - Talk 19:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Doops/NewForest looks splendid. Morwen - Talk 19:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can make both page histories appear at New Forest's page history, which is I think what I shall do. Hold on a moment. Morwen - Talk 19:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the help. Morwen - Talk 19:51, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe merging the history wasn't the right thing to do, but oh well, it's done now ;). Morwen - Talk 20:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You have made good revisions to Order of the Garter, many of which I have copied (with appropriate amendments, of course) for the article Order of the Thistle. Might I request you to similarly review the latter? -- Emsworth 20:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Might I inquire if you know what the offices of the Royal Victorian Order are? -- Emsworth 00:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) P.S. Sorry! I seem to have found the information after all.

Nice work on that page. I accidentally thanked Molinary in the edit summary (should have known better than to misuse the summary field, 'cause now I cannot edit it)!

Klanda | Talk 19:38, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "proudly" was more NPOV. I was trying to get rid of the lengthy prior construction without pissing off whoever wanted "pride" to begin with. I think this compromise works. Can you figure out how to incorporate the two swimming articles, including capitalizing the "C" in college on one of'm, into the main D.C. page?Sfahey 20:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) (class of '70)

Hi Doops. As far as I know, there is a convention on Wikipedia to not place local sports news on Current Events or In The News. This convention is similar to that of not placing fair use or licence-unknown images on the Main Page sections. The convention to not place sport stories on the Main Page is sometimes relaxed in situations such as the Superbowl and the Soccer World Cup, which are relevant to wide snapshots of the Wikipedia readership. During the Olympic Games, we were not allowed to put sports news on In The News. Instead, a separate Main Page section was created in order to keep the sport separate from the news. For these two reasons (sport on the main page, copyrighted logo on the main page) I removed your post. The truth with sport is that we cannot possibly cover every major sporting controversey on the Main Page. So we try to keep the items interesting and internationally important. - Mark 05:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You said on In the news that "by Mateo's critereon, world series or world cup champions don't warrant a mention either. The bottom story he restored was 4 days old". Maybe my comment about the reversion was unclear. What I was trying to point out was that the story was originally linked to American League Championship Series, where the only update in relation to the In the news posting was the addition of a line at the bottom of a table. The guidelines for In the news point out that "Wikipedia is not a news report"; the basic point of the page is to highlight Wikipedia articles that are in the news, so that reader can link to an article that explains them more fully. In my opinion, the American League Championship Series provides very little information, and that is why I reverted it.

Also, if you don't want people to remove your story, maybe you shouldn't post a comment saying "I suppose it could be removed if people disagree". — Mateo SA | talk 05:04, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have succumbed to the objections and removed some information from the lead. I have reduced the detailed information in the lead section to broad outlines (preserving, for example, some information about recent controversies relating to the office). I hope you do not mind. -- Emsworth 19:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Doops, Do you think it would be a good idea, as a palladian window is just a feature of palldian architecture, if the window page became a section of Palladian Architecture with its own heading; if it came below the section of Woburn Abbey, the photo of which shows two palladian windows, I think it would sit quite well there, what do you think. Palladian window would then become a redirect page to palladian architecture. Giano 17:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Harvard University was known as New College from 1636 until it was named after John Harvard in 1639. Reading the first few sentences of the Harvard University article would have told you that. However, there is ample evidence which I will provide at request substantiating this fact. If this was not fact, I would not have written it. Thank you for your incorrect and misguided edit on Colonial Colleges, which has since been reverted. —ExplorerCDT 12:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yo! I'm working on the Wikipedia:Untagged Images project. When you get a second, could you please label Image:PalladianWindow2.jpg with one of our Wikipedia:Image copyright tags? Thanks! jengod 21:07, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Well, I certainly agree that what happened at Colonial Colleges and List of colonial colleges was very bad form. "Copy-and-Paste" jobs which violate the spirit of the GDFL by obscuring the history of who-wrote-what are unnecessary and often seem very rude to those who did the writing in the first place...and as I recall you put a good deal of effort into that one. Since my involvement in the original was pretty minor, and since I was uninvolved in any of the recent moves/copies/etc., I feel I can act to rectify the situation a bit by merging the article histories. There will still be the problem of which name it should be under, and of what precisely should be in it, but at least the original authors (mostly you) will be able to be discerned. (I note in passing that User:ExplorerCDT says he "gave birth to" the article "Colonial Colleges" (On 14 Nov 2004) when essentially the same material existed in the "List of Colonial Colleges" article since 27 June 2004. - Nunh-huh 23:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've now done this, though you'll have to edit the combined article at "Colonial Colleges" if you want to restore/delete/reword/or improve any of its content. - Nunh-huh 00:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi!  I was just wondering why it's better to link MBE to List of post-nominal letters rather than Order of the British Empire in Ellen MacArthur.  I find it distracting when an abbreviation links to a long list, because the reader then has to search a long list to find what they were looking for, but it may be just me!  Is this a matter of general style?  Given that the Order of the British Empire article starts with a list of the Orders of the British Empire anyway, is the change really an improvement?  John Mark Williams (t) 11:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply (currently on my talk page – I dont know whether Im better off replying to it there or here!) and explaining your reasoning.  Im not sure what ultimately the best thing to do with post-nominal letters would be.  I think that links in general should follow the “principal of least surprise” – if someone clicks on a link and thinks, “What am I doing here?  What did I click on?  Ah – wait a minute – I know!  So, now I've got to…” that’s a bad thing.  ☺  Linking to Post-nominal letters (rather than List of…) might be better because the reader actually clicked on a post-nominal letter (or maybe a set of post-nominal letters), not on a list of post-nominal letters (and “List of…” will obviously be linked to from the “main” article).  As for not linking to the same article more than once, I was worried about the same thing, because I wanted to link “knighthoods” to Knight, but Dame is already linked and that redirects to Knight (however, this might not be obvious, and anyway there might one day be an article specifically on dames).  I left a comment in the source in the hope that someone wont undo my new link, but well see.

You may like to know that your <small> tags around MBE have vanished during a series of edits I wasnt involved in where “Dame” kept getting prepended to Ellens name and removed again; I dont know if you want them back there again!  John Mark Williams (t) 10:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Doops,

I figured you'd see a post here faster than those at the Harvard talk page. I think that the article needs to be significantly reorganized. Currently the "Institution" section is an odd jumble that talks about college rankings, the mascot, and has only brief links to schools other than the College, which overwhelmingly dominates. I think that a lot of the info currently at the Harvard University page should be migrated to Harvard College, where even more info can be added. Then more information about the other schools should be added to the University page. We should discuss at the Harvard talk page.

--Jacobolus 14:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I left a comment for you and Jmable on the Talk: Bovo-Bukh page, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - useful improvement on Church of England! Good work. --Daedelus 16:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia standard for the names of Cardinals. RickK 05:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Um, well, I don't know if it's a formalized standard.  :) RickK 05:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at National Rifle Association? The same user as at Washington, D.C. is also attempting to insert his POV there. I'd appreciate if you could revert to my more neutral version of the "criticisms" section. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 18:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree strongly that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia unless converted to past tense.As for Jtdirl (FearEireann)...his statements of how ridiculous it was to consider Ratzinger anything but a non-starter deserve to haunt him to the end of his days!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Doops - um, did you read what I wrote on WP:WSS/C? Exactly. If no-one's objected in a week after the proposal, go ahead and make it (or you can wait for one of us to make it if you prefer).... Since its made, I've added the necessary category, but in future it would be nice if you could wait! Grutness...wha? 00:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah right - sorry, I hadn't noticed that. Still, usually the template, category and listing are all done at the same time, so it was quie a surprise to se it there already. Under the circumstances, since it's all made, I suppose it would be fine to start using it now! :) Grutness...wha? 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you sound like a nice person. Stay well, I will bother you no longer. RGluckman 05:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, but I should probably stay off-line. =) Take care. RGluckman 05:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the courtesy. Of course my own opinion is not really relevant, it is the work itself which is important.

In my re-write I was attempting to introduce the subject with the same format of words as the other articles on Bishops and Archbishops. Although your rewrite goes away from a standard, you have clearly done a lot of work on this page and it would not be very kind or astute of me to revert your edits merely on this basis. Likewise I lack the energy to go back over the other articles again and reword them all to fit in with the Canterbury page. Best regards --JohnArmagh 1 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Well done for you're work on the Magnificat article. It now looks much, much better. --Celestianpower 2 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

I was referring to the rather flowery 1911 language, like "When English churchmen passed beyond the seas". But, if there is a more appropriate cleanup tag, go ahead and change it. --JW1805 18:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It appears I was misinformed. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Here's a bit more info [1] - Ian ≡ talk 02:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Where there has only been one edit and that is a redirect to the old article title, you do not need to delete the redirect before a move. See Moving_over_a_redirect. --Henrygb 23:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Could you make your mind up? Which one do you want? The one dating from 1603 (Arms of Scotland) or the Arms used by Elizabeth II for Scotland? Not the same thing. Personally, I feel the Lion Rampant in the form of a shield would be better, if as good a quality shield is found. Remember, the claws and tongue have to be blue... --Grcampbell 22:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I deleted the comment above from the talk:Scotland discussion, since it was very confusing. Was it directed to me or to Astrotrain? Is it in earnest or sarcastic? Maybe I'm just dumb. If sorry if by removing it I stepped on your toes; but since I was engaging in close-analysis with Astrotrain (or trying to, more accurately), I felt, perhaps precipitously and selfishly, that the § couldn't afford the confusion. Again, profuse apologies. Doops | talk 23:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

It was directed to Astrotrain, as he is mixing up/confusing terminology, and by stating the "arms "of/for use in" Scotland", to me means two seperate entities. --Grcampbell 23:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

University of the District of Columbia, USDA Graduate School, National Defense University...I'm sure I'll think of more as the night goes on. -James Howard (talk/web) 02:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doops. Thanks for standing up on the "dildo" debate on the Main Page. It looks like you made many of the points that I'd have made if I had had the time (my primary impediment from getting more involved with Wikipedia), especially that NPOV is inapplicable when the question is whether certain material belongs in the public arena. Do you think there is any chance that this kerfuffle will catalyze any kind of policy for sexually explicit material on the MP? Do you know much about how such policies get made? Anyway, nice to "meet" you; looks like we have some common interests, baseball and European history. Take care. --BlueMoonlet 14:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've never really been involved in any decency/censorship debate before; I just got drawn into this one accidentally because I have Talk:Main page on my watchlist and I pretty regularly check the main page for poorly-worded entries. I don't actually care that much about the issue, I just get annoyed by smug self-righteousness (which where decency/censorship is concerned can be found on both sides of the debate). If you want to start a policy discussion on Talk:Main page you can try; but I doubt you'll get anywhere. Cheers. Doops | talk 19:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the talk. I can find very little written about early kingship/monarchy that has any edge to it. Lots about sacral kingship and 'feudal system', some old-fashioned nonsense and just a few meaty bits and pieces but a proper comparative study seems elusive 195.92.168.164 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Happy to be corrected on the latin grammar in University of Edinburgh. My version came from the seal (Sigilum commune Universitatis Academicae Edinburgensis) and text (Nos Universitatis Academicae Edinburgensis Praefectus Vice-Cancellarius . . . testatum hoc scripto . . . ) of a degree certificate. Can you double check? StockholmSyndrome 21:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The typical pattern for a sockpuppet is long periods of inactivity followed by a burst of activitiy on controvesial issues, as per [2] Jooler 19:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

An excellent edit, Doops. Thanks for expanding the piece and adding even more information about the debate amongst the bishops and Rowan Williams. Bruce, aka Agendum Talk 00:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Probably right to shorten the piece, as you have done, Doops - but I wonder whether the grounds for the primates concerns should be included - as I understand it, these are not just the ordination of gay clergy, but the appointment of women bishops as well. Bruce, aka Agendum Talk 23:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doops,

My name is Varun. I'm currently on a editing spree of college-related articles. The reason I added a wikify tag to Radcliffe article was because it does not have the same quality as other college articles. I saw on your user page that you are an alum of Harvard. If you would like to help wikify the Radcliffe article, please see my edits of UMass Amherst. As for your comment as to why I didn't do the editing myself, an article doesn't just become wikified by the insertion of link tags. Even your own Harvard College is far more wikified than the Radcliffe page.

In the future, please pose questions as to tags in the Discussion page of the article in question, thanks!

Vvuppala 07:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Discussion continued from here

• Hi Doops,Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't noticed the stub tag on the article. I was caught by your comments on the Harvard article saying so much, but not saying much at all. It is certainly something to keep in mind.

Vvuppala 08:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• territorialism on cat flap
• Hi. I am feeling very frustrated by the way I am reverted-on-sight at that page.

Ummmm.... look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_flap&diff=29836184&oldid=29829049

Brush tar all same don't. - SoM 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry; I wasn't clear. The rant certainly wasn't directed at you; I just pointed it on your talk page because I had seen you editing that page in a much more responsible way and I was looking to you for moral support. Doops | talk 22:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Erm, I know that you said you were going to do something about it on the related talk page, but I assume that "something" didn't include blanking [3] most of the article :) Not sure if that was a slip of the fingers, or what, but I thought I should explain my revert as it seems like yours was an edit meant in good faith. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

copied from User talk:Peruvianllama: Yeah, I guess it was a finger slip. Unless... my wireless network's been patchy lately; is it possible that pressing "save" before my browser's finished downloading the existing text could send it back a truncated version? Doops | talk 07:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hm, not that I'm aware of - although I suppose it's possible. Best to blame it on quantum interference, or evil internet gnomes, I say. Damn, damn internet gnomes... --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 07:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about removing your comment. I performed a revert on the vandalism that occurred before you posted your message, and was in the process of restoring your message when an edit conflict occurred between myself and a vandal. Sorry! Extraordinary Machine 17:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've started a discussion on the three templates: Talk:United Kingdom#UK ties templates. In future however please do not remove deletion notices from articles/templates/categories. Thanks/wangi 14:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry; that wasn't willful rudeness — just stupidity. I had reverted your substantive changes to the other template and foolishly assumed that you'd made the same changes to this one. In other words, I didn't look before leaping. (I guess I must have used that little mouse-hover pop-up window to "save time" and bypass intermediate steps.) Doops | talk 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

reference

No problem. My changes on {{UK ties2}} were relatively minor - updating redirects to the real article names plus pointing to articles rather than templates for a few of them. I'm still a bit unsure why pointing to templates is a good idea - if somebody sees the UK is a member of the G8 then surely they want to know about the G8, and not a list of other countries/topics related to or in the G8 which linking to Template:G8 gives them?

I'll copy this comment across to the UK talk page - probably easier to continue it there. Thanks/wangi 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Re your remarks on the Harvard talk page: well said.

I've been letting myself get drawn into the fray, with the usual lack of success—someone with the username of BrassRat is piling boosterism into MIT again—but for the moment, at least, I take great satisfaction in the opening paragraph of University of Chicago, where I replaced:

it is renowned for its contributions to teaching and research, and recognized as one of the world's foremost research institutions. Known affectionately as the "teacher of teachers", Chicago graduates have won twenty-nine Nobel Prizes, and the University is fond of advertising that Chicago-affiliated scholars and researchers have earned more Nobels than any institution except Cambridge. The academic home of such intellectuals as Allan Bloom, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Ronald Coase, Milton Friedman, Richard Posner, and Leo Strauss, the University of Chicago is often considered among the most intellectual and rigorous of American universities.

with

It is particularly noted for its undergraduate "core curriculum," and other educational innovations introduced by Robert Maynard Hutchins during the 1930s; for its contributions to the Manhattan Project during the Second World War; and for its School of Economics, influential in shaping U. S. national policy in the closing decades of the twentieth century. The University of Chicago has been the academic home of such intellectuals as Allan Bloom, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Ronald Coase, Milton Friedman, Richard Posner, and Leo Strauss.

Still tastes great, but less frilling.

So far, it hasn't been reverted—apart from some folks replacing Bloom, Chandrasekhar, etc. with what I fancy are the names of their friends... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

"The best view of Harvard is widely acknowledged by the entire planet to be that obtainable from the tower of Memorial Hall. This tower ranks number 2 in height among U. S. News and World Report's list of tall buildings in Cambridge, Massachusetts. From this vantage point the splendor of what is frequently regarded as one of the world's most beautiful campuses, older than the country itself, can be admired, including the personal residences of fifteen Rhodes scholars and ten Nobel laureates."

Certainly worth a try, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Odd the way Lincoln had two parts (north & south). Morwen - Talk 12:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

The "weird chunk" of Bristol Diocese in the South west was Dorset! It was transferred in 1836 to Salisbury (or Sarum as its title was officially - possibly still is). What happened was Gloucester and Bristol dioceses were merged in 1836 and Dorset disposed of. The two dioceses were seperated again in 1897, but Bristol was just Bristol from then on.

Berkshire (including Windsor) was moved from Sarum to Oxford in 1836 too.

Here's a *simplified* list of where the counties went. The first diocese is the one in 1836 (and since 1542) with changes then listed....

• Bedfordshire - Lincoln 1837 to Ely 1914 to St. Albans
• Berkshire – Sarum – 1836 to Oxford
• Buckinghamshire – Lincoln (small part in London) 1845 to Oxford
• Cambridgeshire – Ely
• Cheshire – Chester
• Cornwall – Exeter – 1876 to create Truro
• Cumberland – Carlisle (except Alston with Garrigill in Durham – to Newcastle in 1882)
• Derbyshire – Lichfield and Coventry – 1837 to Lichfield, 1884 to create Southwell
• Devon – Exeter
• Dorset – Bristol 1836 to Sarum
• Durham – Durham
• Essex – London 1846 to Rochester, 1877 to create St. Albans, 1914 to create Chelmsford
• Gloucestershire – Bristol , Gloucester, 1836 Bristol and Gloucester, Split 1897 into Bristol, Gloucester
• Hampshire – Winchester 1927 Portsmouth and Isle of Wight to Portsmouth
• Herefordshire – Hereford, part in St. Davids until 18??
• Hertfordshire – Lincoln (Central, north and north west), London (East and south west), transferred to Rochester 1845, to create St. Albans 1877
• Huntingdonshire – Lincoln 1837 to Ely
• Kent – Rochester (East), Canterbury (West)
• Lancashire – Chester, 1844 Manchester created (from south east, centre and north of county), 1856 Furness to Carlisle, 1880 Liverpool created (south west of county), no part of Lancs in Chester diocese from that date. 1926 Blackburn created from Manchester (North and centre of county)
• Leicestershire – Lincoln, 1837 to Peterborough, 1926 to create Leicester
• Lincolnshire – Lincoln
• Middlesex – London
• Norfolk – Norwich
• Northamptonshire – Peterborough
• Northumberland – Durham –1882 to create Newcastle
• Nottinghamshire – York, 1838 to Lincoln, 1884 to create Southwell
• Oxfordshire – Oxford
• Rutland – Peterborough
• Shropshire – Lichfield (north), Hereford (south), St. Asaph (North-west); section in St.Asaph to Lichfield 1920
• Somerset – Bath and Wells, Bristol
• Staffordshire – Lichfield and Coventry , 1837 Lichfield
• Suffolk – Norwich , 1837 West of county to Ely, rest remained in Norwich until all transferred to create St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich 1914 except Lothingland area, which remains in Norwich
• Surrey – Winchester (Croydon deanery in Canterbury until 1990s) part in Metropolitan area to Rochester 1877, to create Southwark 1905, remainder created Guildford diocese 1927
• Sussex – Chichester
• Warwickshire – Worcester (south), Lichfield and Coventry (north and east), 1837 all to Worcester , 1905 less Birmingham, 1918 remainder to create Coventry
• Westmorland – Carlisle (north), Chester (south), south to create Ripon 1836, all to Carlisle 1856
• Wiltshire – Sarum
• Worcestershire – Worcester, Hereford (north west),
• Yorkshire ER – York
• Yorkshire NR – York (east), Chester (west), 1836 portion in Chester part of newly created Ripon diocese.
• Yorkshire WR – York 1836 most transferred to Ripon, 1888 Halifax, Huddersfield, Wakefield areas created Wakefield (ex Ripon) diocese, 1914 Sheffield, Doncaster, Rotherham areas created Sheffield (ex York diocese), Selby and Tadcaster remain in York diocese.

Lozleader 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. I was just googling and it looks like the 1830s changes were the result of the establishment of Ecclesiatical Commissioners in 1836.

• http://www.dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/religion/churref.htm
• http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/ccorigins/

Lozleader 11:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may have noticed that template:anglicanism has had its image changed from the Compass rose because of concerns that the compass rose image is not public domain. Since you uploaded the image I wondered if you knew the true copyright status of it. If the symbol is used around the world wouldn't it be public domain? This is general practice with most religious IP. It seems silly that someone would own it. Let us know over at the talk page if you have any input. --circuitloss 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's turned into a revert war again, so I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page again. You were one of the people who replied on the first (now archived) discussion that occurred, so I was wondering if you'd like to give your input again. See Talk:Dartmouth College#The_Motto_(again) for the current discussion and Talk:Dartmouth_College/Archive_1#The_Motto for the archived discussion. --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 16:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

When you return, can you just decide if this page is still required? Thanks, and enjoy the break. Harro5 06:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

An image you uploaded, Image:CompassRose.gif, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ThatcherB&W.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your very sensible amendments to this article.

Hello Doops, sorry for taking so long to reply. Yes, I understand your views those edits at the England page and was under the (correct) impression that you would not object (you were clear enough in your edit summary). When I was explaining why I was reverting, I was aiming it at other people who may have been tempted to revert me. Cheers :-) --Rudjek 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've just greatly changed the section in Split Infinitive on the argument from other languages, since I found someone who actually did use such an argument. If you continue contributing to this article, I'd like to point out that the article defines split infinitives as having an adverb between the "to" and the verb. In that case we don't have to worry about whether amaturus esse is an infinitive or an infinitive + participle, as you said on the Talk page. Latin doesn't have split infinitives in the sense we're talking about. —JerryFriedman 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, if this helps, some two-word verbs in English are not separable, like "get rid (of)", and some are, like "set up". ("They tried to set me up.") I think this is a matter of idiom; it's not something prescriptivists pronounce on. And I don't think our definition of "split infinitive" is too narrow—it's the same in all our sources. —JerryFriedman 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was wondering what your rational was for renaming the article Dove's Bellringer's Guide to the Church Bells of Britain? The original article name was a compromise of the true book title, and an inclusion of the author's name. I have subsequently been of the opinion that it should have been the correct title on its own. Your new name does not at all reflect the name of the book. :) Oosoom ^Talk to me 14:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I see you reverted a change I made to King of Ireland regarding the nationality of the King of Ireland. I fail to see how pointing out that George VI was British is POV. It is no more different than pointing out that Ruaidri mac Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair (Rory O'Connor) was the last Irish King of Ireland or that Edward Bruce was the (first and) last Scottish King of Ireland. That fact is that George VI was not a native of Ireland. There is a heading in the article called King of Ireland#List of Lords, Kings and Queens of Ireland (Non-Native) (not added by me I add) alluding to this fact. I have added back in my change. Please do not remove it again without discussing it first, regards Snappy56 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eh? The Boy that time forgot 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right, got you now. Thanks. The Boy that time forgot 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)  Reply

Hey, I just wanted to say, that was some nice group work there with you and me and User:Blnguyen in trimming and copyediting the next update. I was rather pleased with the way they turned out. howcheng {chat} 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I accept Wikipedia's policy of accepting good faith on the part of others and thank you for your efforts in improving the wording of the article on Lough Neagh. I've been away from Wikipedia for a few months and rarely get much time these days to edit articles. The last time I was involved in wording this article, I remember a broad consensus had been reached, which involved omitting 'British Isles' and substituting 'island of Ireland' and maintaining 'Northern Ireland' and 'United Kingdom' in the text.

I was somewhat annoyed to find that while I was away the 'British Isles' term had been reinserted into the opening lines of the article. Now, I'm not going to discuss 'BI' in depth: much discussion has already been made by myself and other Irish Wikipedians on the discussion page of that article to no avail. A broad consensus was reached at that time to sanction an article on 'BI' in spite of the fact that the term is almost never used in the state nor by a sizeable bulk of the population of Northern Ireland and is distasteful to many.

Irrespective of the arguments surrounding the origins of the term 'British Isles', in the year 2007, the adjective means either (1) pertaining to the island of Great Britain or (2) (loosely) pertaining to the United Kingdom, its government, people, etc. Bear with me for a minute while I explain this. Someone born and raised in a sovereign, independent state, i.e. the Republic of Ireland, is expected by those pushing the term 'British Isles', who are almost all British themselves, to accept the term 'British Isles' as pertaining not just to the UK but to their own sovereign state and land. In the year 2007. Think about it. We have our own government, our economy is one of Europe's strongest, our own language, history. We are a fully paid-up member of the European Union and the UN. We have been a sovereign state for over eighty years. People gave their lives so that we could live in a free and democratic society and yet despite all of that, we are still expected to swallow the sort of Victorian mindset which 'British Isles' represents.

I accept that there are some British people who mean no offence and can't possibly see why Irish people should reject this term. I realise now that most British people are indeed totally ignorant of Ireland and the Irish. Others claim that if someone on the other side of the world thinks 'BI' is just peachy think we just accept it, in spite of the fact that these people neither live here nor were born here. The bottom line is: Irish people should have no say in how they are labelled on the world stage.

Northern Ireland is of course part of the United Kingdom. It is currently under British rule. However, to claim that the entire island is 'British' really is jarring (and remember this is the year 2007). As to what term should be used instead really isn't our problem. We didn't asked to labelled by something which would baffle most of the population here. Unfortunately, some of the contributors seem to be on some sort of political prosletysing mission and cannot be relied upon to be impartial. Feline1 is the worst in this regard. I've given up trying to have a civil, rational debate with this person and simply ignore him.

Lastly, I will continue to delete 'British Isles' until someone gets sense. Thanks again for your contributions. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 19:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The hysterical Irish nationalists will never be placated. Their only rationale for censoring the term "British Isles" is that they personally find it offensive. It is easy to counter this as about 50 million more people within the actual British Isles find their censorship offensive. This hurt can objectively be weighed on a huge angstometer which will clearly demonstrate who is the most valid.--feline1 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, but The PM is about to resign.

This user was one of about six or seven users that edited in turn from the same IP, set up a one-line userpage and user talk page, and made one edit to a page changing a fact incorrectly. They were all, except one, created within the same 10 minutes on August 30 2006. Obvious sleeper socks engaged in subtle fact-changing vandalism. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I only noticed because another one made an alteration to Canon T90 which I knew was absolutely wrong. Wouldn't have caught the others without CheckUser. Makes me worry how much this is happening. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "As of 1988" formation is clumsy, poor English, and best avoided — but in so far as its use is sanctioned on Wikipedia, it's only in certain circumstances: "Usually as of is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide current information. It should not be used for historical information that is not intended to be updated." (Wikipedia:As of#Usage guidelines) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

As we're citing a particular edition of the book, the "as of" is already implied, surely. If the edition of the book is up-dated, then the material will be, but it's not as if we'll be up-dating the book edition without up-dating the reference to its content. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for answering the newbie's question. I always feel terrible blowing off questions like that, and I try to do it as gently as I can, but you really have to hold the line on talk pages. I noticed that you were sad at your red sig-line's passing. You can still make it red, or indeed whatever color you want, by going to "my preferences" and editing your signature so it contains an HTML command for font color. The syntax is pretty easy; you can see it in my sig line, along with the totally unnecessary and gratuitous bolding and italicizing. Just replace the HEX color code (the "#BLAHBA bit) with one for the color you want (see [4] for a few thousand choices). --Dynaflow 03:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I only made to change Lizzie: must have got lost in version space and edited the wrong version.--BozMo talk 21:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that logos should always be captioned, whether in an infobox or not. I would appreciate your input here: Wikipedia talk:Captions#Logo captions. I am trying to get the style guideline for captions to be consistent with that of logos.--In1984 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "egg shell" theory is as follows. In 1066 there was no British Isles. In fact, there was no Britain. Britain was an archaic word for the area under Roman rule in ancient times and for the people and that territory (who predated the Romans under the same name). These people and their territory, soon-after the fall of Rome, were disposessed by the Angles, who we would in time call "English" (Wales and Cornwall are hang-on of the Britons who for various reasons were able to maintain a seperate identity). What did happen in 1066 was that the Duke of Normandy attested that he had been promised the kingship of England by Edward III. When this wasn't forthcoming and invasion ensued and England was conqured by the Duchy of Normandy. These events led to a series of invasions of Scotland, starting first with William himself riding north, that intertwined the kingdoms of Scotland and England. A century later, the Normans invaded Ireland, and it too, through a series of unexpected events, became intertwined politically with the England.

From this point a line can be traced to 1603 when one king rules the three kingdoms of Britain and Ireland, the Isle of Man, a feudal posession, in between the two greater islands, and the remainder of the now greatly diminshed Duchy of Normandy, the Channel Islands. Soon thereafter, in 1621, we have a new word in English that describes this region, the British Isles (why "British" is another story, but from my account of the territory of the Britons and the territory of the Agles/English/Duke of Normandy, I'm sure you can surmise).

Thus the eggshell this:

1066: No "British Isles"

->

Duchy of Normandy

->

Duchy of Normandy + Kingdom of England

->

Duchy of Normandy + Kingdom of England + Isle of Man

->

Duchy of Normandy + Kingdom of England + Isle of Man + Kingdom of Ireland

->

Duchy of Normandy + Kingdom of England + Isle of Man + Kingdom of Ireland + Kingdom of Scotland

->

1621: "British Isles"

This is how it as remained to this day, albeit with the UK replacing the kingdoms and the majority of Ireland becoming a republic. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Check and - I suspect - checkmate. Talk:List of Archbishops of Canterbury

I am fine with your removal, but I suspect my buddy over there is gonna wanna make some changes. I had NO idea that my little isolated scrap was really a battle in a HUGE war until a day ago. Hell, he and I wasted seven (7!) pages in a matter of a few days on the subject. Word got out at last and I think the issue should be closed soon, at least on that page.

The divisions between RCC and C of E are pointed out in the notes, but he wanted a giant disclaimer that the ABC was "Catholic" and is not now. At one point, my buddy stopped just short of asking me to delete everybody after Cardinal Pole, because they were/are not "really" Archbishops of Canterbury. I know Rome's position is that Anglican orders are defective, YET they refer to the ABC as such.

I was raised Roman Catholic, I went to 12 years of Roman Catholic School, My mother teaches RCIA, We identified as a Roman Catholic, nobody ever told me I was supposed to be offended by the term. It may be that many people simply use the term "Catholic" when they mean "Roman", but I had NEVER in all my days and travels met somebody who took offense to the term Roman "Catholic" until a week ago. That is a fringe concept, for sure. WWW has all kinds, I guess.

Well, the list now conforms to the conventions used in lists for York, Winchester, all of them. I hope its done, I want to work on getting the York list up to the same quality as the ABC one. Thanks for your intrest in this situation. I also would like to get the Cranmer article to GA status. If you have a good set of eyes and you have a moment, would you proof it and make any changes that are needed. I look forward to our crossing paths again, SECisek 00:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Andrew c ^[talk] 00:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

In your comments regarding The History of the Fairchild Family at DYK (to which I have responded), you mentioned that the article was long. I was surprised to read that. If anything, I feel that it is short (it is approximately 1800 words) - it is limited by the amount of scholarship published on Sherwood and the book. Would you mind telling me what elements of the article made it seem long to you? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have finally located the relevant article. It is only two pages long, so there is not much material to draw on, unfortunately. Tell me whether you think the additional details are an improvement. Awadewit | talk 05:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me, I thought it was done. SECisek 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I am still new to this whole "Do you know" thing, I thought I would ask your opinion on my next set of submissions. Please feel free to alter them on the DYK page. I think that the third and fourth are best, since they are the most "facty". You? Awadewit | talk 12:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• ...that Mary Wollstonecraft's novel Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman was one of the first feminist texts to argue for cross-class solidarity among women?

• OR ....that Mary Wollstonecraft's feminist novel Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman can be considered a fictionalized popularization of her revolutionary A Vindication of the Rights of Woman?

• OR ...that Mary Wollstonecraft considered her feminist novel Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman a sequel to her revolutionary A Vindication of the Rights of Woman?

• OR ...that Mary Wollstonecraft's feminst novel Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman is heavily autobiographical?

Please don't judge the article too harshly. It's new. :) Awadewit | talk 12:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the DYK suggestion - you can see it on the main page (with picture) today. I have also continued expanding the article, particularly the "Style" section. Let me know if it assuages some of your concerns. Awadewit | talk 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there -reply to your query. I have never heard of this term persay,...Archontology... however it is somthing that many authors have felt compelled to write about when discussing the history of the rugged western frontier. Archontology seems to be what helped to make Saskatchewan a modern civilized province instead of the romantic wild west. Transcribing historical books online which are no longer in the public domain, I realised when I saw the article on Archontology, that that is what these books were all about....One is Pioneers and Prominent People of Saskatchewan and the other.... THE STORY OF SASKATCHEWAN AND ITS PEOPLE. Now I just have to figure out how to edit and condense four books into one History of Saskatchewan article that bespeaks archontology as a section. In the early 1900's the movers and shakers of Saskatchewan belonged to the Saskatchewan club, now the building is a preserved heritage site, and the current movers and shakers esp of the scientific community belongs to the Boffin Club of Innovation Place Research Park University of Saskatchewan. ( I never heard of Globophobia until a Corner Gas T.V. series episode either,... so both Globophobia and archontology are interesting phenomena.) SriMesh | talk 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

In answer to your question, I have no relevant personal experience with archontology, nor do I come across the term in my day-to-day work. IIRC, I was just flipping through random wiki pages and noticed that it needed work, and had nothing better to do.

Now, if your question relates to how commonly it is used, a quick google of "Archontology" comes up with almost 7500 hits - which, for an academic term, is pretty good, I think. - LeeNapier 13:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see you are quite involved with University articles... Please would you visit Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and vote for this University of Saskatchewan article!!! There is an aim to achieve feature status with the University of Saskatchewan article on wikipedia. Tell any and all other Saskatchewan editors / students / alumni you know who wiki to vote also please!!! Help requested. Thank you!!! SriMesh | talk 03:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CompassRose.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:CompassRose.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm trying to get some constructive discussion going on over at Talk:Lough Neagh. As an editor that has been involved in discussion to date, would you be interested in taking a look and giving your thoughts? I'll be reminding all of the editors that I'm inviting to remember to keep it cool, and assume good faith. I'm sure that if all editors work together here, we'll have this one nutted out in next to no time. Mark Chovain 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

We'll see in time if my optimism is misplaced :D. In the meantime, what do you think of my suggested alternative? Either positive or negative comments will be welcome, as I don't fully understand the issues involved. Mark Chovain 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR^talk 07:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Which bit was cryptic? Badgerpatrol 13:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes- sorry if that sounded a bit abrasive. The issue has indeed been gone over before, hence my facetious allusion to nosebleeds and the like. As a tangential aside, can foreigners (or indeed Americans for that matter) obtain financial scholarships (as opposed to loans) to study medicine in the United States? Badgerpatrol 13:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi — Don't see how a mountain was made out of a molehill; the group-list format appears to be standard. Yours, Sardanaphalus 02:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. If the distinction between GB and UK is not that significant here, how about merging the lists under the heading "Prime Ministers of Great Britain and the United Kingdom"? Sardanaphalus 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dartmouth College student groups, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Dartmouth College student groups satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartmouth College student groups and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Dartmouth College student groups during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Noetic Sage 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doops. I've proposed Lists of university leaders, which you created back in 2005, for deletion, because I think a yet-to-be-created category, Category:Lists of university leaders, would serve the purpose better. What do you think? Picaroon (t) 02:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the hint, will add a note to that effect. SeoR (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You were right about what I was trying to do, and sorry I didn't wait longer to let you fix the edit. Thanks for letting me know what happened. --Muéro^(talk/c) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi; I've reverted your edit removing the details about Peter Phillips' engagment. As this is a verifiable fact which affects his position in the line of succession, I think it deserves its place in the article. If you prefer a compromise, how about moving it to a footnote to make it less prominent? Chrislintott (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy for you to move it to a footnote - I don't trust myself to do so without breaking things. Chrislintott (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

There were a couple people !voting oversight who seemed, to me, to be requesting that the entire page be oversighted (they may have been edited after I posted.) In a similar manner that we can't order a Bureaucrat to perform a rename, we also can't order an oversight to do that job. The best we can do is ask someone with oversight permission nicely and hope they do it. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:Europe2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:UK ties requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sentamu.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mangostar (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

hello, User:Astrotrain is trying to place the Arms of Great Britain on the Scotland page. This user claims on User talk:Astrotrain that "They are the Queen's Royal Arms, and they were linked to the relevant page. You can find the compromise agreement in the archives of the Scotland talk page." I finally located in the archives [archives] a conversation which involved yourself. My understanding from reading these archives is that there was no clear compromise, and if there was, it was to keep the status quo and not add the arms. I am contacting you over this matter as User:Astrotrain is continuing to try to add the said arms and has today stated in Talk:Scotland "There was a clear consensus, you can ask any of the other editors. I suspect you have other motives for making these changes. If you insist on moving the arms, they will be reinstated in the infobox then.". Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nah, it doesn't I noticed my mistake before I went and put a warning on your talk page. Chalk it up to lack of sleep. Whispering 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Droops, 'I'd try to help, but I'm already regretting getting sucked into the equivalent discussion on Scotland'. You certainly have my sympathy. There seems to be at least one troll on there, which draws any discussion out without end, going round in circles. Have a look at the republic of Ireland renaming and the British Isles debates for good examples. I've only made comments on the Scottish arms debate where something about Wales needs clarifying, thank goodness. I thought it best just to be an observer. I agree with you that Llewelyn's arms should be shown on Wales' infobox. I even reinstated them there quite recently, but the edit was reverted. I wasn't too sure if I wanted to show Llewelyn's or Glyndwr's arms at the time, so I didn't fight for it. Both are flown at the Eisteddfod and on parades, so they're in current use. Anyway, thanks for your support, though, and good luck on the Scottish arms. I'm sure we'll meet up here and there soon enough. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've started a discussion at the above page. Since you created the article, I'd appreciate your views. Regards, Craigy (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 20 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is James, Viscount Severn. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James, Viscount Severn. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well done on your edits on the British line page. This article was decimated from a much fuller version. You inserted the Dan Willis reference and it was removed. But Dan Willis is an expert and author in this field. Here are three of his books: http://www.amazon.com/Reference-Guide-Royal-Families-ebook/dp/B0051XZYYI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305991949&sr=1-3 http://www.amazon.com/Romanovs-21st-Century-ebook/dp/B004KKY552/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=books&qid=1304983490&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/William-Mrs-Jordan-Family-They/dp/1460964799/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304181960&sr=8-1 He has put his name to the site you list, which is a good authority indeed. But the people who reduced the size of the site want it to be reduced notwithstanding. Have a look at the home page of this author Dan Willis. His publisher describes him ar "Daniel A Willis is a noted royal genealogist whose previous works include studies of the royal houses of Habsburg, Bourbon, and Romanov He lives in Denver, Colorado." All the best. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PalladianWindow2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on File:PalladianWindow.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

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.   Magister Scienta^talk (16 November 2011) 04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Frankly, it's very sad, I think, that you've now destroyed what had been created with such care and great phonetic empathy in the article Duchies in Sweden. I thought I'd write to you here, rather than criticizing you on that article's talk page, in case you have a special interest in this. I especially don't understand why you removed the helpful x-refs (e.g East Bothnia see Östergötland). SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

PS I put in 2 alphabetically crucial x-ref~headings and motivated your addition of the names of actually irrelevant provinces. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Duchies in Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lappland (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) 10:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

From that article, the senior VP of Cisco says, "[I] can’t speak highly enough of the support received from IDA Ireland, even down to “behind the scenes” work on restoring Aer Lingus’s direct Shannon-Heathrow flights, the lack of which was a major headache for Cisco." m.o.p 16:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes — the citation code was broken so it wasn't appearing on the article, but I eventually found the link to the press release and followed it, and found that CISCO was indeed relevant to the press release. It still sounded very forced in the Aer Lingus context, though. Undue weight and all that. Doops | talk 16:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MitreSmall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2013 (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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I reverted your addition. The lead (introduction, summary) should summarize what's below. I am not sure a short version of the plot is a good idea which is better in the linked article about the poem. IF, please don't make the Erl King a fairy which I think suggest a female character. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The file File:MitreSmall.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Cropped from a PD image still hosted at Commons into a lossy format, a vector version also exists and is being hosted currently. If we needed this image in the future, it could be recreated.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MitreSmall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Harvard–Yale sister colleges has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unnotable and barely sourced. not worthy of its own page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ardenter (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply