Mark J

wow... that is cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Came here to say the same. Great work! Ben ^T/_C 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article ends with some sort of cliffhanger: Although of only moderate height (50m/164ft), it has a high prominence because it — Mind adding the reason for its prominence? Rl 20:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You voted for High Middle Ages, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Alphax ^τεχ 3 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)

Hi there! Just a word about images; the one of Stybarrow Dodd you uploaded seems likely to be copyrighted - after all it has the web address for www.go4awalk.com on it. Unless you have got proof they allow us to use it we'll have to remove it I'm afraid.

In future when you upload images, make sure you use an Image tag. Thanks, and cheers for the various hill pages; good work pal! Grinner 10:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there again! Unfortunately it is not that simple - a picture is copyrighted, and you can't use it for anything without that copyright holder's permission. You need to search around the webiste you get an image from and see what they say. For example, I have used picture from Ann Bowker's website quite a lot. If you hunt around you'll find that she says: "you are welcome to copy and use these pictures but please credit the photographer - Ann Bowker - or better still include a link to my homepage mad about mountains". So I use the image tag {{Attribution}}:

If you look at go4awalk.com they say:

3.3 You are permitted to print and download extracts from this site only on the following bases: 
a. use of documents and related graphics on this site is for personal use only; 
b. any copies of these pages saved to disk or to any other storage medium may only be used for subsequent viewing purposes or to print extracts for personal use; 
c. no part of this site may be reproduced or stored in any other Website or included in any public or private electronic retrieval system or service without go4awalk.com or TMDH Limited's prior written permission. 

I know it is very compliacted, but copyright lawyers can be very nasty! Sorry about the lecture, keep writing about hills mate, just be careful about images! Grinner 10:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to bring to your attention the following page: wikicities:c:poetry:Sandbox Poetry (from Wikipedia). JesseW 22:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Anything to add to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains/General#From_Template_talk:Infobox_british_hills_.28no_image.29 as regrds the infoboxes we use for hill articles? Grinner 09:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm almost certain that the caption of the image you've included at Kirk Fell is slightly incorrect, and that the viewpoint is on the north-east slopes of Illgill Head, rather than on the slopes of Scafell Pike, at about NY176051 – while I suppose one could argue that Illgill Head is a continuation of Scafell Pike, most would agree that Illgill Head is a separate fell starting south-west of the Burnmoor Tarn col. For comparison, I've put a 3D picture created with aerial photography in Anquet Maps here [1] based at the above grid reference. StephenDawson 19:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've taken the plunge and edited the image caption. StephenDawson 18:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Very good idea that one pal! I will make a little adjustment though - I think mountain should come before hill i the category, since that is how the parent category is named. Now to work on finding 'em! Grinner 21:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Very BAD idea, as explained when you proposed the stub type. It has taken a lot of extra effort from the stub sorters to repair the mess that this new category made to the UK geography stub categories. Please desist from using it. The stub type is now up for deletion. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK so UK-hill-stub didn't work out (I still think it is a good idea, the policy is wrong!), hope it hasn't scared you off. :-) Grinner 10:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark J. You wrote DONT GET ANGRY WITH ME. I went ahead with the stupid thing right after I proposed it because I couldn't find/be bothered to wait for the proposals page again. Kinda thought I was doing everyone a favor sorting out the mess that you guys have got, and it certainly helps some people (see Grinner above). I didn't even put most of the stubs in the stupid category anyway.

I was angry with you because you deliberately went against the procedure. If my anger was misplaced, I apologise, but it caused a hell of a lot of extra work and time, which could have been taken up on more productive stub sorting. As for you not populating the category, no-one would have populated it if you hadn't made it in the first place - and "couldn't be bothered to wait" is hardly a good excuse. As for Grinner's suggestion that the policy is wrong, the best way to change a policy is to discuss why you think it is wrong and attempt to change opinion that way - not to go against policy and then try to explain afterwards. Grutness...wha? 09:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I wrote the 'apology' in a tearing hurry. I admit that i did the wrong thing, only trying to help.

Fair enough. And I'm sorry that my responses probably just made things worse. Truce? :) Grutness...wha? 23:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Adding a pronunciation parameter to {{Infobox_british_hills}} will probably cause problems, since all the hills without pronunciations will look bad. Another solution would be to create separate templates, like {{Infobox_british_hills_pronunciation}} and so on, but we don't really want to increase the number of templates in use for every new idea we have. What we can do is to agree on a method for incorporating pronunciation information into the existing infoboxes. Perhaps in small type under the name in the first row of the header, something like this:

It might even be possible via a transcluded template, so that "Y Lliwedd {{Infobox_pron|ə ɬɪwɛð}}" produced the above output.

Problems like this would, incidentally, be solved if we used the approach put forward by User:hike395 for using the generic mountain box format. Then, it would simply be a case of creating a row (e.g. the {{Mtnbox_pronunciation}} that I've been playing with) and inserting it where required in the infobox. A mock-up is shown on the right.

Either solution seems acceptable to me, but I would insist on the use of IPA. I've lost track of the number of times I've read stupid things like "Yr Wyddfa (pronounced urr-weeth-var)", which are of no use to anybody. Adding IPA to pages is tiresome, but the only reasonable way of preserving the real pronunciation.

--Stemonitis 08:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Another possibility, which, for some reason, I've only just thought of, is to put the pronunciation information in the text, and not in the infobox. Simple, eh? --Stemonitis 08:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Regarding IPA, I realise that most people don't know it, but that's why I put the link there; anyone can go to the IPA article, click on the relevant symbol, and be told what words in English and other languages use that sound. I really think it's the only way. For instance, there is no other good way of representing the /ɬ/ sound. --Stemonitis 07:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I quite like the ide of an optional row, as Stem has suggested. We should probably suggeest it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains/General first though. Grinner 19:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I like the optional row, too. Sadly, it means converting all of the British hills infobox template calls over to multiple Mtnbox template calls. This is not impossible, it's just a lot of work. Since I'm on WikiHoliday, I don't want to do this myself. -- hike395 15:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the point is that not all the hills would need it. We could transfer those that require a pronunciation field across. Over time the number of peaks using the infobox would shrink, making eventual complete conversion easier. Grinner 08:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK, nobody said anything against the idea, so I'm going to put it into a few hills then. Grinner 10:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

In the end I ran into trouble with the symbols for IPA pronunciation, so I gave up. Grinner 15:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Don't know if you noticed Category: British Hills by Height, but this category has ben produced, it makes a list of all British hills in height order by using the infobox. It has now been proposed for deletion. You might have an opinion one way or the other, so check out Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_1#Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_.28km.29_and_its_subcategories if you like. Grinner 15:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark - you might want to hold off on moving stubs from UK-geo-stub to England-geo-stub for a while... a lot of the ones you're moving are only going to be moved again shortly, because there are currently eight counties being split off, and a few more will be in a week or so - probably 500 stubs won't need moving across to the England category. Hang on for a couple of weeks and you'll save yourself a lot of work! Grutness...wha? 11:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Mark: I hereby award you this Wikithanks for being bold and editing Snowdon to include pronunciation. This is a good idea: we need to take a first step in converting British Hill articles over to Mtnbox templates. Thanks!!! -- hike395 04:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bit of help please! Can you tell me which codes equate to which IPA symbol? Is there a list you are using or something? Grinner 09:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and it seems a shame that changeing over means that we can't have double infoboxes. I'm going to ask about this at the Wiki Project.Grinner 10:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for being thick, I hadn't noticed you recent additions to my talk page! I will go and do some hills. Oh and just noticed the changes to your User Page, a belated happy birthday!Grinner 13:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to change the double hill template to include pronuciation, and then re-inser it into Beinn Eighe etc. Hope this is cool. It seems people are happy with it as a special case, and it was a shame to loose the additional summits. Also, I've found Template:Mtnbox_start_nopic_norange, which will be useful for turning over other infoboxes without pictures into the Mtnbox format. Grinner 11:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello, The big pic is not Ruadh-stac Mor, it's Sgurr an Fhir Duibhe and the Black Carls. RegardsGillean666 11:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you asked Nohat about this and he didn't give you such a clear answer. The reason the vowel that sounds "ay" is not on the IPA vowel chart is because that vowel is a diphthong (double vowel). The two vowel sounds in the word "bathe" are on the chart separately. I assume you mean [this chart].--LiuLanDi 05:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think the general position is to prefer a comma rather that brackets, but I don't think it's set in stone. Grinner 09:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I notice you've been updating the List of Marilyns in England with full relative height information. Once again (didn't we discuss this at List of peaks by prominence?), I wonder what the meaning of parent is. Relative height is all about differences between ring contours and the highest points within them, as I see it. Thus, the highest point within a certain 445m contour is the summit of High Stile and that point is at 807m, giving it a relative height of 362m. That contour touches another (at, by definition, a col), whose highest contained point is the summmit of Scafell Pike at 978m. When thinking about it that way, one can't help but see Scafell Pike as the parent peak to High Stile, and not Great Gable. But then, I've always thought about it that way, so I my be blind to the advantages of the alternatives. --Stemonitis 11:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've found a great website: [2]. They aim to have a photo from every 1km grid square in Britain, and all the images are licensed as Creative Commons Attribution, so they are suitable for use on wikipedia. I have addded some to some hill pages, just thought I'd let you know. If you find any to use, remember to put the photographer's name and the code {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} in the information section of the uploading page. Grinner 09:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Kirkfell.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much.

-- Mamawrites 00:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Loughrigg.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Secretlondon 17:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for removing my picture of Eskdale. A picture I remind you that I took and is not barred from Wikipeda by copyright like the one you have replaced it with. Better picture - I think not - that picture is clearly lifted from another website and is subject to copyright. Seems you make a habit of doing this sort of thing. Think you ought to put the original picture back which is far better anyway. Then again I might do it myself. Mick Knapton 14:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if you would consider supporting Emergency department atWikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. This department is where we all go if we are very ill, and I feel it needs a boost if it is ever to get featured article status. I would greatly appreciate if you were able to offer support on this.--File Éireann 15:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

How did you find those very cool panoramas? (I came across your links in some White Mountain, NH peaks). What an excellent site that is. - DavidWBrooks 16:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hiya Mark, I don't wish to upset anyone and true, the panoramas themselves are quite informative, but that third paragraph of the opening page:- A CD containing all the panoramas listed below can be supplied for £5. Also 360° panoramas from customer specified locations can be ordered. These are priced at £12 per viewpoint if e-mailed, £16 if sent on CD and £20 if sent printed and encapsulated. There is an overhead charge of £3 per order to cover p&p/admin. For contact details click here really smacks of commercialism. If you would link just to the panoramas, that would be fine. BTW I admire all your other contributions to british hills. Regards Gillean666 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

-- No it is not commercialism. The above prices are based on reproduction cost. Btw the USGS charge $45 for CD's and $60 for DVD's for data based on "cost of reproduction". The labour cost of creating panoramas from customer specified viewpoints justifies the price of these. Please be less trigger happy, Gillean. Jonathan de Ferranti, author of the panoramas.

No one else seems to be objecting to the links so it seems I may have been a little hasty, please feel free to revert my edits.-Gillean666 13:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark, I may need your support again! See [here]. Someone seems to think that SRTM evidence is not permissible... if that is so then you will need to take down all your prominence lists as they belong in the field of original research Viewfinder 11:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd just like to pip in here and say I have trouble finding the usefulness in all those linked panoramas. Additionally the commercial aspect is way off too. Remember WP:EL#What should not be linked to... If the copyright of these images was such that they could be added to WP itself, then... Thanks/wangi 21:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Right, I'll take it to Viewfinder's page, although you are the one adding the links! Although I am going to remove at least the link from the Forth Road Bridge article - having a panorama of peaks visable from a peak is one thing, but from a bridge!? Thanks/wangi 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Might I suggest you upload the CC photos from geograph.org.uk to Wikimedia Commons rather than here - generally if the copyrights allow it (and they do in this case) it is much better to upload to commons because the image can then be used easily by all the Wikipedia projects.

In any case you are tagging the photos with {{cc-by-2.5}}, this is wrong - you should be using {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, which matches the licence used on the geograph site itself.

I've uploaded quite a few photos from geograph myself (e.g. File:RRS Discovery.jpg, File:Loganair Islander at Fair Isle.jpg, File:Barra Airport, control tower.jpg, ...) and managed to cause quite a stir in the process too: http://www.geograph.org.uk/discuss/index.php?&action=vthread&forum=2&topic=1118! That's one of the reasons it's important to get the copyright stuff 100% right!

A great resource though, yeah?

Thanks/wangi 17:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, 2.0 is different to 2.5. What I do is leave the licence at the default setting, and in the Summary field put in all the info I want. For example with File:RRS Discovery.jpg I added today I entered:

[[RRS Discovery]] was built and launched in [[Dundee]] in 1901. It took [[Captain Scott]] to the [[Antarctic]] in the same year.

Alternatively just edit the summary afterward and change the licence template to {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. Thanks/wangi 19:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've added a {{geograph}} template to Commons. I tagged File:De Havilland Aircraft Museum Hertfordshire.jpg as an example. - Crosbiesmith 15:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to thank you for the work you're putting into tabulating the page - it is appreciated! Grinner 10:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, im an active contributor in es: wikipedia. I'm interested in generating a list like you did, but dumping in wikimedia download does not include information about users (user table). How did you generate it? I prefer you to answer it in my es: wikipedia discussion page. Thanks so much. --Porao 23:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Mark! When you update the word-count, please don't forget to also update the "as of <word>" section. That helps us know when someone has forgotten to update. Thanks! (...tanks, war, raw, meat, ) Peter T.S. 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Caer Caradoc.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Steve block talk 21:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Cheers for that, I hadn't seen it before. I will certainly make use of it. Grinner 12:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

What follows is somewhat nit-picking because I have to admit that the images you have copied from geograph have been marked with source and licence information in an exemplary manner - and better than Grinner has been doing. But please from now on: always remember to upload to the commons and always use the {{geograph}} tag.

Further may I suggest that if you have any spare time, please:

• go through what you have already uploaded to the commons and convert to use the {{geograph}} tag
• go through what you have already uploaded here, the English wikipedia. I would not suggest you re-upload them to the commons but again if you could add a {{geograph}} tag to each one it would help.

Using the tag puts the image into a category for images from geograph which, if nothing else, may help to catch double uploads such as you have done with: File:Bishop of Barf.jpg - File:The Bishop of Barf.jpg and File:The Cheviot.jpg - File:The Cheviot Summit.jpg.

-- RHaworth 20:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Note, i've now updated {{geograph}} here to match the commons version. Thanks/wangi 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just to say, I'm liking your maps of the English Marilyns. Good work, as always! Grinner 12:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

So they got deleted eh, b*gger. Grinner 14:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Raise.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:St_sunday2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

It seems that your motion for including the article count in the main page redesign won out, and has now been included on the project page. Would you consider changing your vote from "Conditional Support" to "Support" now? Fieari 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Dollywaggonpike.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:HighRigg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Knott.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Mellbreak.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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mark J, I have an urgent message. A person with the I.P. address of 210.212.45.144 has made some serious defacations to the wikipedian website. We need to stop and revert this man's edits NOW. Pass on this message.

Hey Mark J. This is Starhood`, and as a fellow genius, I wanted to show you a new game from the sandbox. It's called Diplomacy. Why don't you check it out? It's very good.

Um, Mark. I really hate to be the one who's saying this but you're painting a BIG red bullseye on yourself. Please don't add information to your home page on who you are but what you are. Thanks. Starhood` 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Hope you aren't pissed off on me for nominating your article List of football teams by World Cup performance for deletion. Nothing wrong with the article itself except that it is original research. I just wanted to say that I hope that you keep contributing to the football articles on Wikipedia, and that if you seek assistance on Wiki-football matters, the WikiProject on Football is here to help! – Elisson • Talk 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, ditto to above and I hope you don't mind me removing the various references to it in nation's articles. It IS quite an interesting list though --Robdurbar 16:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Will you quit adding that bloody table to 1930 World Cup, it has been removed above 5 times now and it is going to be removed againg. It was a knockout competition. Jooler 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes it seems it was you! In this edit [3]

Taking out the points wouldn't really help either. If you want to include material like this, please discuss in the article's talk page and try to gain consensus there. I know I have deleted this table at least twice already and it is irritating to see it being reinserted without dialogue and seemingly against common sense; the tournament was a knockout one, so a league table seems spurious and misleading. --Guinnog 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Sorry. Jooler 16:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You replied to my comment (I think) on Jooler's talk page by mistake. Please seek consensus in talk for any further additions of this type you might be tempted to make in the future. With or without the points. Thanks, --Guinnog 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I found the table via your user page. I have updated it and added some comments. Viewfinder 22:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark, I see you added the section about hills of Hewitt status in Scotland to Hewitt (hill) (which I've now merged into Hill lists in the British Isles). Do you have a source for such a list (I'm assuming it wasn't the dreaded original research)? If so could you cite it in the article, or let me know? I've moved the section to the talk page for the time being, as "a survey has recently been completed" doesn't really stand up to WP:VERIFY. Cheers, Blisco 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

AzaBot 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mark J, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (File:Nestene consciousness.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Mark J/Sandbox. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with File:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- I saw you recreated Ceol of Wessex and Ceolwulf of Wessex as separate articles. I recently merged them to Wessex after a merge discussion at Talk:Wessex#Suggested_merges. (Only one other person commented.) Did you miss this, or do you think the merge was a mistake? I'd still like to keep them merged -- there's nothing more to say about these guys. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, no problem; if you find more then sure, an article is worth it. On Ine of Wessex, I've reverted your note about Aethelheard possibly having married Cwenburg -- the article is a featured article candidate right now, so I'm trying to keep it properly sourced. Can you tell me where you got that information? As far as I know, the only reference to this is in a charter which is known to be forged, and I didn't think it specified whether Aethelburh was Aethelheard's sister, or Aethelheard married Cwenburg or another sister we don't know of. Anyway, let me know -- if there's a good source it would be great to add it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the family tree looks good. I haven't gone through it to see where you got the data -- before Egbert things get a bit speculative; the various genealogies disagree quite a bit. But as far as I can tell from a quick look, it's an asset. Mike Christie (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#New row added: Parent_peak. Thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Encyclopedic biographies generally exist to provide an account of the subject's life and situate his actions in history, not to hit the reader over the head with the fact that he's descended from a really really really long royal line. Of course that descent set the King up for his position, but it had no (or only a peripheral) effect on his actions in office. Let's look at a professional biography of a royal, shall we? We're told who his parents were and that's essentially it -- not even his royal house is explicitly mentioned. So, if you truly want to stick that long and essentially trivial list into House of Bourbon, I suppose it's an option, but really, I'd say let's direct our efforts toward prose-building. Biruitorul (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Earliest documented people. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Descent of Elizabeth II from the Romans, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Descent of Elizabeth II from the Romans. Pumpmeup^{(is awake!)} 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template:Royal houses of Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Charles 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Hutton's Unconformity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ale_Jrb^talk 11:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you saw my note on the talk page, but a reference indicating that Arran is the site of "Hutton's Unconformity" (as opposed to just one of them, would be helpful. Either that or expand the article to include any others. There is no rush as such, but it would be helpful to have an early indication of your intentions. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Earliest documented people, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earliest documented people. Thank you. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Firle Beacon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Firle Beacon. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:War of the Spanish Succession family tree.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't see that was you the author. To easily denotes that I put the {{self}} with your license tag. Sorry, again. --Sdrtirs (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mark J

• Can I point you to the discussion on the talk page of User:RHaworth and ask you if you have an opinion on the subject of county High points as we need a consensus on the subject. Many thanks Stavros1 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Awesome image! With data type images, it's often a good idea to cite your sources. I assume you got the info from a history book? On an unrelated note, I'm looking across into the Lake District from where I am sitting, so it's nice to see someone who writes about my local area. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yeah, that's fine then. Keep up the good work! J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I saw you edited the Catstye Cam article recently. Having added one of my images to the German article, I thought you might like this in the English article as well (I don not want to edit it because I dont have an English Wikipedia account). I could not find anything like it on Wikipediy Commons, though I think it's a very fine view on the mountain. --79.210.187.15 (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just trying to help! – ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heh, no worries, thanks for the cleanup. --Mark J (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't create it, i just added it to the page when i merged the two Ultras pages. User:Ras52 gets the credit for the map. --Greatestrowerever (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've seen that you added the prominence of Canigou (550 m) in February 2006. Since then, a lot of pages on the Internet seem to have retrieved this info from Wikipedia and I can't found other sources for this kind of information. I was wondering if you have a source where I can get other prominences for not-so-high mountains. I have this page but unfortunately there aren't many mountains there, just the highest. Thanks in advance! --Qllach (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That would be [4]. I think! Mark J (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

See also more such lists and other linked sites at [5], although not all of the data have been map checked. Viewfinder (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick word of warning. There's been some discussion recently on the prominence Yahoo group (its mailing list archives are publicly accessible) about the excellent lists of Ultras that you have made. Some of the authors/contributors of the http://peaklist.org/ website are concerned that these lists might be in violation of their copyright: see, in particular, this message where Aaron Maizlish, the primary author of peaklist, is requesting clear attribution at the top of the pages. While I can fully sympathise with this, making such a condition is incompatible with the GFDL — the licence which applies to all the text in Wikipedia. Specifically, while the GFDL requires "principal authors" to be acknowledged, it does not allow additional further restrictions on how they are to be acknowledged. This may sound like a technicality, but it is important because, for example, if I wished to, I could take Wikipedia content and turn it into a printed book without seeking any additional permission from the original contributors. This is further complicated by the fact that elsewhere Viewfinder has stated that "the vast majority of the peak data is based on computer generated lists which I derived from SRTM data and various topographic maps in 2004–5. Copyrighting this material would have obstructed the production of useful derived products. Therefore I did not copyright it." I'm sure an amicable arrangement can be reached on this; nevertheless, I wanted to make you aware of the potential problem. — ras52 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

From what I can make out, the problem is not with the lists themselves, but with the text at the top of the Ultras page, which is admittedly very similar to the text on peaklist.org and therefore does count as a probable copyright violation. I'll do my best to change it without losing too much stuff. Mark J (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh ok, you've already done it. Thanks. Mark J (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

By all means continue to add lists of ultras to Wikipedia, but not without supplying material sources! Viewfinder (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! I couldn't get to Peaklist earlier, I think the site was down or something, so I couldn't get the URL's (I used your spreadsheet instead). Mark J (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is a message I put on User talk:Greatestrowerever on September 18, which is unanswered.

"I am getting frustrated with the list of the less famous Tajik Ultras on peaklist.org. Example: "Gora imeni Fuchika" (line 21): this should be "Fucik Peak" (after the Czech journalist Julius Fucik, who visited Central Asia in the 1930s), but "Fucik Peak" is not mentioned in any of my Tajik sources. Furthermore, it is mentioned only three or four time on Google (in Russian, nothing in English), and in these cases it appears to be a 4,100 m peak in Kyrgyzstan (in the Issyk-Kul' region), not a 4,573 m peak in Tajikistan. On my topographical map of Tajikistan, I find a 4,573 m peak at the coordinates specified in peaklist.org, but it is unnamed. The link to 100K maps given at the bottom of peaklist.org does not work any more. So I am stymied. Can you direct me to good sources that list Central Asian mountains by altitude, not necessarily by prominence? I would like to check this as thoroughly as possible, because the new Ultras in the list will need to have new Wikipedia articles written about them (if only stubs). Any guidance you can give me will be much appreciated. Thanks. --Zlerman (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)"

Unfortunately, the problem (with Gora imeni Fuchika and other peaks) remains in your extensions/updates of List of Central Asian Ultras. The new lists are very comprehensive, but they look like verbatim reproductions from peaklist.org (no copyright concerns?). In my opinion, we in Wiki should make an effort to identify/describe the peaks more fully, so that readers of the List get a better idea what these peaks are and where they are located. The profusion of red links does not help, of course. I am not a member of the prominences group and I am not qualified to deal with these issues, but I bring this outsider's view to your attention as a representative of the experts. Best, --Zlerman (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zlerman, good to know you're interested in the Ultras! Unfortunately my only job has been to copy the information across from peaklist to here (where everyone can look at it and it can be updated regularly). Your best bet would be to ask Viewfinder, as he is one of the three people who actually worked on the project.

Cheers - Mark J (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

On the general issue of copyright, it was agreed by the webmaster of peaklist that the ultras should be on Wikipedia, because it will expose them to a wider audience (e.g. Zlerman), allow others to contribute directly and provide a list with links to pages with detailerd information. On the specific issue of Gora Imeni Fuchika / Fucik peak, there is definitely a 4500-4600m summit at the location given on peaklist, it is shown on the Russian 100K map and is in agreement with SRTM. The name was extracted from the USGS GNIS, but the Russian map names the peak 4573m, "Gora Kukhifrush". Any new information Zlerman can provide about the correct name for the summit at this location will be welcome. On the issue of red links, it should be noted that not all ultras have generally recognised names - pages about the likes of "Point 4800" may have a tendency to be nominated for deletion. Viewfinder (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of United Kingdom regions by population density, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

unsourced fragment

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Mark J- Your alterations to this page are fantastic! Pretty much exactly what I had envisaged for it! (You probably noticed that I have tried to combine the Sui and Tang family trees before, but they kept being reverted.) A thousand thanks! 86.155.8.148 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Found your post on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_and_Irish_hills article. Yes, there does appear to be a way, not entirely sure how it works, and it could be time consuming for each hill I guess. Just refer to my reply. Pigetrational (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure whether you've been following the discussion on Talk:List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in Wales on how to divide the Welsh Nuttalls up into regions, but it seemed like the sort of thing you might have an insight into. —ras52 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for alerting me to the discussion! I've replied there Mark J (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've responded to some of your comments over on Talk:List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in Wales, but I'll answer your questions about my map here. The coloured contour base layer of the map is derived from NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission data. NASA have made a 3-arcsecond digital elevation model dataset available for the whole world between 56°S and 60°N. NASA's data has voids in it, often in mountainous areas, so I use User:Viewfinder's void-filled version of it. I then wrote a short computer program to produce an image with one pixel per 3"×3" square coloured from green (sea-level) through yellow (300 m) to white (600 m) and finally magenta (900 m). (There's so little of Britain outside the Cairngorm plateau above 900  that making all such regions a uniform magenta looks absolutely fine. If I get around to doing Scotland, I might redo the base layer adding an indigo for 1200 m, which might just show up in the High Carneddau.)

Other than near the equator, 3" of longitude is considerably less than 3" of latitude (56.5 m versus 93.8 m in mid-Wales), so I've scaled the map rectangularly to fix that. This results in a Mercator projection and so introduces a horizontal distortion at the top and bottom of the map (in this case by about cos 51.5° / cos 53.5° = 4%). (In general a transverse Mercator projection such as is used by the Ordnance Survey is more suitable in an area shaped like Great Britain — i.e. taller than it is wide — but that would have required actual thought on my part.) The base layers (scaled or otherwise) are trivial to generate and if you want any, just ask.

Generating the run-offs (i.e. the domain boundaries) is harder. I wrote code to analyse the elevation model to try to find these. This works well in mountainous areas which is why I've done Wales first. At present, though, it's almost useless somewhere for somewhere like East Anglia. Some places there are several possible lines which need manually resolving. I usually do this by tracing rivers and/or valley bottoms on the Ordnance Survey's New Popular Edition maps. (The reason for using the NPE maps is that they are out of copyright.) In some places, even this is somewhat arbitrary: where, for example, where is the southwest edge of the Beacon Batch cell where it passes through the Somerset Levels? My code attempts to find cells for any peak with a 100 m+ prominence — this is because the SRTM data tends to under estimate the prominence, especially when the key col is in a narrow gorge or the peak is particularly sharp and pointy. Merging sub-Marilyn cells then needs to be done manually. I tend to use your Humps lists for that. The longest part of the job, though, is manually tidying up all the boundaries, coastlines, etc., so that they look pretty, and then adding all the labels and so on.

So far I've done maps of Wales and the Welsh Marches and Southern England: south of the Avon and Thames (at half the scale of the Welsh map). And I'm working on Northern England: from the Tyne to the Humber at the same scale as the Welsh map which will go as far north as Cold Fell (35A) and south as Winter Hill (36) or maybe Black Hill (36). Except I'm now wondering whether the scale is wrong as there are too many small cells in the central Lake District, and I can't fit the labels around them. And I wonder whether I should have extended the map south to include the Peak District Marilyns. So that may turn into two maps — a larger scale one for the Lake District, and a smaller scale one for northern England. I've also got a part-finished very small-scale one for the whole of the British Isles, which will serve two purposes: first to indicate which areas are covered by which other maps, and secondly to mark the cell boundaries in central and eastern England. (I'd like to know which cell I live in, for example. I'm wondering whether the River Cam might form the boundary between Bardon Hill and Haddington Hill.)

After that? Well, a map of Northumberland and the Southern Uplands of Scotland: from the Forth and Clyde to the Tyne is likely. But at the moment I haven't decided whether to tackle the rest of Scotland. I'd very much like to, but unless I can improve my code so that considerably less manual tidying up is required, I think the time required to do a job of a standard that I'm satisfied with would be more than I have.

There are a number of other minor thoughts I have for longer-term improvements. If I can find a source for traditional (i.e. pre-1974) county boundaries that I can legally use, I wouldn't mind including these as faint overlay. And I'm contemplating including an overlay of major roads and/or railways much like on the Harvey's Mountain Charts] maps of England & Wales, and Scotland. (Though unlike Harvey's, I thought I would take the innovative step of putting the mountains in at least vaguely the right place — c.f. this TAC review.)

In answer to your question, yes, I am on the RHB group and I occasionally read some of the correspondence there, but I've never really got into it. Feel free to upload either of those maps there if you want. (So far as I'm concerned, they're available under the Creative Commons 3.0 by-nc-nd licence. I expect I'll change that to something more permissive in the future, but at present I'm keeping my options open.)

Anyway, thanks for your interest and kind words about the map. One of these days I'll learn how to write a short talk-page comment :-) — ras52 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Awesome - thanks for taking the time to post a detailed reply. The maps do look good and it's great to know that you plan on making some more. I'll leave it up to you whether you want to post them on the lists of Marilyns, since they're yours - but I think you should, since they do an excellent job of showing the hill's locations.

I can answer one of your queries straight away - the boundary between Cleeve Hill and Haddington Hill, at least in the area you're talking about, is the Great Ouse. This means that Cambridge and the hills around it are part of the HH territory, whereas everything to the NW of the Ouse is Cleeve, and that includes England's remotest hill, in Haddenham near Ely, if you're interested. Bardon's territory is actually quite small.

You may be wondering how I know this sort of stuff... I actually worked out a lot of it myself when I was in the process of doing the 30m list. If you take a look at them (they are on the Files section of the rhb group, good as a centralised database for files if nothing else!) they are sorted by parent Marilyn, and this is done according to the territories. I did this using a mapping program called Fugawi which allows you to draw lines on the maps, and simply drew on the Marilyn territory boundaries from the key cols given in the 'Marilyn's parents' spreadsheet. If you follow me.

Unless you have Fugawi yourself this isn't going to be a great deal of use to you, but I can send you some screenshots of the areas I've done without too much trouble, if you like. In fact I'd be glad to be able to repay you in some way for your artistic skill! I can also probably answer any specific queries you have, eg. Beacon Batch.

I'll post something on the group soon linking to the maps if that's fine. Everyone should definitely know about them. Good to know that you are connected to the community - making use of Viewfinder's work (I take it he knows about your work? He does very similar stuff) and I'm real glad you're finding my Humps lists of use. Let me know if you spot any mistakes :-)

All the best. Mark J (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on List of members of the House of Oldenburg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:NPennines.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have provided this information. —ras52 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

I noticed you've been doing some editing of the Welsh orthography article. You should be careful about your phonological descriptions. For example, you seem to be mixing up [ə] and [ʊ]. The first, schwa, is the sound in English about; the second is the sound in English book. You also need to be careful of the term "diphthong". ir does not represent a diphthong in Welsh; it's a combination of a monophthong and a consonant. Awr is a combination of a diphthong and a consonant. And the [r] is pronounced in Welsh; while ear is pronounced /iə/ by most speakers in England (except before vowels), ir is pronounced [ir] by most Welsh speakers, regardless of the following sound.

Finally (and this is really picky! Sorry!), I notice from your wikibook that you say, "This letter makes a sound like..." and so on. Be careful of that: letters don't make sounds, they represent them. We shouldn't talk about letters as being vowels and consonants (although the temptation is so great that we frequently do) either, for the same reason.

I hope that's been some help anyway! Sorry to sound critical.

garik (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not at all! On the contrary, thank you very much for your corrections. I freely admit that I am not a phonology expert, just a hillwalker with an ambition to make things clearer! I hope people find the wikibook useful once it is finished. Mark J (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark! Would it be possible for you do to do one of two things for me? One, convert trees I have created such as that at Niall of the Nine Hostages or two, show me how to do it myself. There are quite a few such trees for the various Irish royal dynasties but my versions are crude compared to what you can do. Let me know!

I'm not quite sure what you mean to be honest. The one over at Niall of the Nine Hostages looks splendidly done to me and you clearly know how the syntax for the family tree template works, which isn't straightforward. Stick with the method you're using! Mark J (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Great Gable from Kirk Fell.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 10:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Pillar and Rock.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm not a template expert, but I've tweaked this template a bit (having found it on Ilkley Moor on my watchlist).

• I've put some breaks into the region names to make that column narrower, to allow more room for the lists of mountaint

• I've shrunk the image a bit for same reason. (It could just be a matter of my display settings, but the template seemed to take just far too much space relative to the rest of the articles)

• I've altered the "name" field of the template - this should match the file name. As it didn't, it wasn't possible to edit the template directly by clicking on the "e" which appears top left of it.

I'm not really sure whether this template is a good thing - it's so large, and most of its functions seem to be well done by the list at List of Marilyns in England, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposes deleting it, but I think I've improved it a bit. Cheers, PamD (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi - actually I think you may have overdone it a bit on the region names as the table now takes up more space than before, as each section takes up three lines as opposed to two - at least on my browser, and that coupled with downsizing the image leads to loads of white space. However I am using widescreen which is fairly unconventional. Maybe it is something to do with your display settings as well. I will try and go for a compromise. Cheers, Mark J (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Were you planning to deploy this template? It's currently showing up on the orphaned template list. If it isn't going to be used, it should probably be deleted? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mark, I noticed you're moving various pages with Sgurr to Sgùrr with the note it's "proper Gaelic". Both are seen but actually the spelling without the accent is correct, even correct-er. It's a case of compensatory lengthening before non-intervocalic rr nn ll and m in Gaelic, so sgurr has /u:/ by virtue of the -rr, not the ` . Writing the accent is not unheard of but opens a can of worms becase if due to inflection a vowel is added, the vowel shortens and the accent may NOT be used anymore. So plural sgurrannan has /u/ for example. I'm not too worried as the English articles are unlikely to involve inflection but I just wanted to point out that moving them isn't really necessary. Hope that made sense! Akerbeltz (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks mate and having looked it up I agree with you. Does this hold true for Carn as well? To be honest I was just following the usage in OS maps. Mark J (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! Yes, unfortunately the people messing around with the spelling don't quite understand the text to phoneme rules of the system and have introduced quite a mess, sadly mis-advising the OS. You're right in the sense that it's now OS practice to wroter Sgùrr/Càrn/Àird/Àrd etc in spite of this being superfluous.

And you're right on the rn group too which (along with rd) always causes lengthening/diphthongisation of the preceding vowel. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I really like the table idea you added to World's largest cities, but I'm a bit confused on a few points. Would you please comment at Talk:World's largest cities#Table? Thanks!

Thank you for uploading File:Lake District.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark. If you're retouching vector maps (e.g. by adding colour), can you please keep them in vector format? Wereon (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

And if you gone to the trouble of doing all that, I should imagine you're planning to do something similar on Friday? I wouldn't bother - I've got all the originals, and can generated a full batch in just a few seconds. Once the results are in, of course. Wereon (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I've taken the initiative. Have a look. Wereon (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dude, those are awesome! And you must have pretty nifty computing skills to get those up and running so quickly. I can't even work out how to add colour to an svg while keeping it in that format. But I thought it would be worth having county-scale results images for before/after, so a decent comparison can be made on Friday, so I'm glad you've done it better than I have. If you could do another batch on Friday to put side by side on each page, that would be really good.

Could I ask you also to do one for Wales as a whole? I was going to do the Welsh counties as well, but a lot of them only have a few constituencies in them and there are also a few overlaps. I would do this myself, but I haven't a clue how. I mean, if you could teach me I would happily do it for you, but I'm guessing it's pretty complicated.

All the best, Mark J (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Glad you like them. I did prepare a map of Wales - File:WalesParliamentaryConstituency2005Results.svg - but didn't add it to the relevant page. Likewise Scotland and Northern Ireland.

If you want to learn how to do it yourself, have a look at the program Inkscape. It's really easy to use. Wereon (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nice work all round. The maps look superb! WFCforLife (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added the new maps a few hours ago. Wereon (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Massive massive thank you. Hope you enjoyed the election! Mark J (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I really don't like the "votes per seats won" column you added to many articles a couple of weeks ago, and thought I'd let you know before I remove them. Our electoral system means we vote for individuals rather than parties, and it makes it look like Wikipedia is pushing a pro-PR (or at least anti-FPTP) POV. Wereon (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

At antipodes, you listed Niger for the Cooks. However, I can't find anything antipodal to Niger, so I deleted it from that list. — kwami (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mark. I am looking for citations to improve the EPR paradox article, which has very few. Way back in Jan 2009, you introduced the name Greene into the article at EPR paradox#Measurements on an entangled state. Can you remember where you got that from? Before your edit, the explanation that follows was attributed to Bohm (no ref there either). You did several edits that ended up attributing it to Greene. But there was no citation. Hope you can help. Myrvin (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?. OCNative (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marilyns Pennines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peter E. James (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:HighRigg.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Mellbreak north.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, There is an error in the Romanov family tree picture. Ivan IV had three daughters who survived to adulthood, including Empress Anna of Russia and Tsarevna Catherine Ivanovna of Russia. Catherine's only daughter was Grand Duchess Anna Leopoldovna of Russia, mother of Ivan VI of Russia. But in your figure, Catherine is not found at all, and it is shown as though the two women named Anna (Empress Anna and Anna Leopoldovna) are sisters to each other. They were actually aunt and niece to each other. Please correct it.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thriplowmap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom. proposal regarding the scope of the list. -- Bejnar (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark, I've been doing some work on Outlying Fells (after a brilliant day on Black Combe on Tuesday). There is now just one unlinked hill name in The Outlying Fells of Lakeland (and I'll have a think how to sort out "Howes" later). But I'm a bit puzzled by the template {{Outlying Fells}}, which I see you created. I can't see what the rationale is for which names are included. I feel inclined to revise it to have 56 names, one per chapter, in A-Z order but divided into names which are individual fells and names which are horseshoes and circuits. But before launching into that, I thought I'd see what you thought as the original compiler of the template.

Another thought I have is that the list in The Outlying Fells of Lakeland ought to be a sortable table, with columns for height and chapter name, so it would be possible to answer the question I came home with on Tuesday of "where does Black Combe come in the height order of the outlying fells?". I might have a go, with one of the utilities for converting Excel spreadsheet to Wikitable. Not sure what other columns might be useful additions - either page number or "chapter number", so it can be sorted into the order in which they appear in the book, for one thing.

By the way, your user page and talk page differ by 3 years as to how old you are - does the talk page need an update? PamD 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I decided to go ahead anyway as the mood was upon me (Mother having been singularly irritatin and I felt like hiding away on the computer). Hope you're OK with my changes. I'm going to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills about what I'm doing. PamD 08:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have completed the full family tree for the tang dynasty emperors, including all their ancestors dating back to Laozi (actually there are a few cadet branches I'd like to add like Li Bai's branch, but he is not a direct ancestor so that can wait). The problem is that the lines on the tree are skewed slightly to the left and therefore straight lines like the one from gaozu to taizong do not align properly, can you fix it? I'm pretty sure its just one error thats causing the entire line to shift towards the edge, just straighted in out. Talk:Chinese_emperors_family_tree_(middle)#tang_dynasty_family_tree.28incomplete.29 Mr reems 45kg (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hallin Fell.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article Princes of Wales line of succession has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

merged into list of rulers of Gwynedd

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. DrKiernan (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind if this is deleted? Bearian (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi i'm writing a research paper on the rurik dynasty and so far this is the most helpful thing i've been able to find, what source did you use to get this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenpox101 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I love your detailed family trees, but I would like to suggest a correction to this one: Anna Leopoldova (mother of Ivan VI) was the granddaughter, not daughter of Ivan V. Thanks! Mathmannix (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Great Coum.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Skiddaw and Keswick from Walla Crag.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Wild Boar Fell.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Slate Fell.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:52, 8 October 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) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Langcliffe: Hallo Mark J, Can you remember what source you were using in this edit? It seems to be the first appearance of the mysterious Wood Hill! See Talk:List of peaks in the Yorkshire Dales (Incidentally, did you start editing as an 8-year-old, or have you just not updated your user page recently?) PamD 08:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies (1974–83) by region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orkney and Shetland. 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) 11:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of churches in Anglesey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages St Catherine and Zoar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark! I moved List of churches on the Isle of Man to draftspace because there weren't any sources nor much content other than parishes. I figured better safe than sorry, because it's something that I personally find intriguing and don't want to see it deleted. Cheers! ɯɐɔ 💬 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• No worries, hopefully it's suitable now. Mark J (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

(1.5 years later) Hi Mark, thank you for creating the list-article. Independently I developed most of Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man, which overlaps, and only just noticed yours. Perhaps we could work together to improve both list-articles and some individual articles about the historic churches? --Doncram (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark J, great to have some more historical data at List of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland. We're doing pretty poorly for sources on that page though. Was wondering if you could give a citation for your section, just to get the ball rolling? Cheers! – sam _talk 11:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The 1832-1885 section? I'm afraid I just went through the individual Wikipedia articles for the constituencies. I didn't do any research outside of WP. Thanks, Mark J (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, sorry, I should have thought of that - I've been doing the same in other places. All the best! - sam^💬 08:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

(Header corrected.) Hey, would you like to collaborate on completing that page back to 1801 and beyond? Found a reference: [6] - sam^💬 22:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating List of churches in Cornwall, Mark J!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi, if you're not already planning to do so, can you please come back and finish this off? If not, it may end up deleted as it's not ready for the encyclopaedia yet.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Mark J, thanks for creating List of churches in Cumbria!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add sources

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of churches in London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beulah (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) 11:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to List of Conservative Evangelical Anglican churches in England does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presbyterian Church of Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beulah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You're mentioned on Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy as one of the earliest people to mention the phenomenon. I was wondering if you remember how you learned about it. Elplatt (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Elplatt, I remember it well (I was only about 16 at the time). I was just randomly clicking on links and wondered where I would get if I kept clicking on first links. I was expecting to have to make a list of the loops I found, but to my surprise I kept finding only one loop - the one with Philosophy in it. Happily I made a WP page about the phenomenon. It was mentioned in the Wikipedia Weekly podcast but almost no-one knew about it until XKCD mentioned it in their alt-text one day. Then it went viral and led to several pages being protected as people tried to make or break the loop. Cheers. Mark J (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to List of conservative evangelical Anglican churches in England does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thank you for all your help with List of conservative evangelical Anglican churches in England. I (and others users) would greatly appreciate if you could use an edit summary. For example, I've restored St Jude's Church, Mapperley to the list because without an edit summary I don't know why you've removed it. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. Yes, you're right, it's not helpful how rubbish I am at this. I'll try to better. The reason I removed St Jude's was when looking at the edit history, I noticed an edit dated 20 September 2018 removing St Jude's which as you can see from its edit summary seems to be from the church's vicar. Obviously there's no way to be sure of this, and it could be argued the church should go in anyway because it has signed up to a Gospel Partnership doctrinal basis which is definitely complementarian, but I didn't think it was a battle worth fighting. Happy for it to go back in though. Mark J (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Dukes of Richmond has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of churches in the Anglican Diocese of Leeds, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages All Hallows, Saint Lucius and Saint John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The file File:Region 33.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, History of the British line of succession, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Interstellarity T 🌟 16:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mark,
Excellent work producing that list.
I have made a few editing changes—but none to the actual list—that include the position on the page and the sub-heading rating. Please let me know what you think.
Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark. Wow, well done on that timeline of changes you've added! That's quite an undertaking. Might you be able to add your sources to what you've written, please? I think your work is worthy of inclusion somewhere on wikipedia, but without any sources cited at all, I'm afraid it would be swiftly deleted. If you need any help at all, please ping me back. Your comrade, DBD 21:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi DBD, I actually just used the information available on each archdeaconry's WP page, no external research needed or undertaken. I suppose the count in the right hand column might count as OR, in which case I'm happy for it to go. Mark J (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, I just noticed you've omitted the Welsh archdeaconries (which were, 'til 1920, in the Church of England). DBD 20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presbyterian Church of Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beulah.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mark, it seems you're quite the worker when it comes to lists of churches, archdeaconries, clergy and so on. Thanks, it is helpful to those of us busy with other language versions. I was just wondering if you have a source or at least a date for the number of clergy featured in List of churches in the Diocese of London. That would be very helpful to me, as I edit the Swedish version of Diocese of London. Cheers! OJH (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi OJH, my source is https://www.crockford.org.uk/, unfortunately I think it needs a paid subscription to access, but you can still cite it, I've seen other people do it. Mark J (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I looked at the (quite excellent) map of archdeaconries at List of archdeacons in the Church of England and realised that's not really in the scope of that page. So I've started Draft:Archdeaconries of the Church of England, so we can work on a substantial article on the history, development, and current state of the archdeaconries. DBD 19:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I hereby solicit your response to the comment at Talk:Topographic prominence#Mount Everest's dry prominence. Based on your past edits, you seem like someone who would have an intelligent response to that. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:90F8:E9C5:A7CE:4A1A (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Royal houses of Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please see talk page, grateful for your view as a former contributor to this page. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Springnuts (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Presbytery of Ross needs to be edited to remove Tain; and remove Fearn Abbey & Nigg l/w Tarbat; and add Easter Ross Peninsula. See references 1 to 4 at Fearn Abbey. PeterR2 (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hoped you might be interested in this as you started the article! cheers DBaK (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of churches in Northampton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Testament Church of God.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark,

I stumbled upon your file Dutch monarchy.jpg and noticed that it's a bit outdated. Prince Friso died and Queen Beatrix abdicated. Do you still have the source of that file?

Best regards, Kees, aka Zoetermeerder Zoetermeerder (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Afraid I only have the jpg, sorry! Mark J (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Mark J, Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections has an elegant but sadly out-of-date graph showing the electoral fortunes of the parties from 1900 to 2017, which you uploaded in Nov 2018 as "own work". Is there any chance you could create an updated version with 2019 and 2024? It would greatly enhance the article. Thanks. PamD 14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or, is it possible for you to provide the code and a set of instructions for someone else to update it? PamD 14:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article List of Scottish Episcopal churches has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long unsourced; WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A shame, but I don't see a use in keeping it. Additionally, the organization of the article by dedication is unusual.

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. Pbritti (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Stoneton, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Ancient parishes of Northamptonshire has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joe D (t) 19:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pembrokeshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meline.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diocese of St Davids, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Julian and Florentius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply