User talk:Hengistmate

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Battle of Cambrai (1917), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article is incorrectly named but that moving it would be controversial then you can always follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you do I would suggest that you also post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as well. NtheP (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen what you have written on the subject (and what I believe is you off-wiki). I think you may have come up against a sticky point with the way wikipedia works with regard to sources; wikipedia reflects what the sources say and we have to be careful with how we interpret them and when sources differ on a point. If you are troubled (as you seem to me) by the quality or ranking of sources or how to tread a neutral-point-of-view course when sources differ it might be worth flagging your concerns for a third opinion at one of the relevant project pages. The issue has already been noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Trouble_at_George_S._Patton. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be a contributor to GWF, Hengist by any chance?Keith-264 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pop in from time to time. One can learn a lot there. Hengistmate (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In re the double post here, you are free to remove it, y'know. You put it up, & it was a mistake... I couldn't, but you're free to. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are editing the Tank article at the same time as me. I have stopped so that I don't cause edit conflicts. Have at it! (Hohum ^@) 16:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment self-deleted) --Guy Macon, 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Macon, Thank you for your message. If you would be kind enough to read the opening sentence of Mr. Dingley's second contribution here you will see that his response to what I believe to be a reasoned and politely expressed point was, "Patronising tosser. "You make a number of points, several of which are true" Well pardon me. As to references, yours are hardly impressive, being the sort of coffee table "Big Boy's Book of WAR!!!" that are the bane of Wikipedia."

You will also note that I have discussed other aspects of this topic entirely amicably in the past. You will find the same type of polite exchange of views, with people who are prepared to listen, on the Saint-Chamond Discussion Page and the Renault FT Discussion Page, both of which have resulted in substantial refinements to the articles. My only concern is to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia's articles on the various aspects of the armoured vehicles of World War One, using not coffee-table books but about 40 years of researching the subject. My limited understanding of the rules of Wkipedia leads me to suggest that Mr. Dingley is in breach of a number of them. He has been gratuitously abusive, he chooses to dismiss reliable sources that I am happy to provide (which, I think, contravenes the NPOV policy), and also appears to be "biting the newbie." My own failing is in being unable to heed the advice to "stay cool." Presumably as a result of some imagined slight, Mr. Dingley seems to be going out of his way, in a disingenuous fashion, to drag out and obstruct the discussion on the Renault FT on the basis of one word (about which he is wrong anyway). Unfortunately, Mr. Dingley's ability to exploit the rules of Wkipedia exceeds mine.

You are the third person to lecture me in connection with this matter. I would respectfully suggest that such admonishments be directed to the appropriate quarter, and then we can get on with bringing the articles in question to the required standard. I have no need to spend my time doing this. It is dismaying to observe that misinformed articles lie undisturbed on Wikipedia for considerable periods until someone intervenes, at which point people who have shown no previous interest begin lining up to, as the Bible puts it, strain at gnats.

I look forward to hearing that Mr. Dingley has been advised as to his p's and q's.

Yours respectfully, Hengistmate (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment self-deleted) --Guy Macon, 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You've made a request at Talk:Jean-Baptiste Eugène Estienne#Requested move, but you don't say what you want the new article name to be. You could update the move template by replacing 'NewName' with what you want. Citing a printed reference that shows how his name was spelled when other people refer to him would help your case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Johnston. I do apologise. I thought the paragraph I posted was explanation enough. Still not fully familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. I have actually cited the biography of Gen. Estienne written by his granddaughter, and can also cite an earlier biog by Colonel Ramspacher in which it is stated that E was christened Jean, Baptiste, Eugene. I shall try to put everything where it should be. Unless you're offering to help . . . Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the granddaughter's book is offered for sale on a website, you might link to how it is referred to there. Possibly Estienne's name is included in the book title and we can see how she spells it. The WP:COMMONNAME rule suggests we check how other people refer to the person, not necessarily how the person prefers their own name to be spelled:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

— EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you wait for your move request to be acted on before you go around removing the hyphen from his name in articles, via piped links. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book in front of me, open at page 10. That's where the above quote comes from. It's called Le general J.B.E. Estienne, "pere des chars," by Mme. Arlette Estienne Mondet. You're welcome to google it and confirm. I can also see Col. Ramspacher's book from where I am sitting. I've already had a very prolonged discussion about whether to use common but incorrect titles, in the matter of the Renault FT itself. The solution we came up with was that if someone searches for the common but incorrect name they are directed to the article bearing the correct name, where the common misconception is explained. Is this acceptable? Hengistmate (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon. Page 10 carries the publisher's note that Estienne preferred to be addressed as Eugène, and explains the correct pronunciation of his surname (the 's' is sounded). It is on p16 that the author states that he was christened Jean Baptiste Eugène, and on p1 of Le général Estienne that Colonel E.G. Ramspacher makes the same point (Editions lavauzelle, 1983). Estienne's personal preference is not the point of the request; it's that his name is misquoted. It's as if David Lloyd George were listed as David Lloyd-George, for example. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that using or not using a dash, hyphen or emdash is a perpetual problem. Which ever side you take, someone else will not agree. The page move you commented on was made since there were no objections. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adding references that show how it is spelled in common usage and reliable sources is always best. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you were of course right about the introduction of pike grey field dress in 1909. The original paragraph (which I drafted) was unclear as to which armies retained shakos for full dress only in 1914 (like say the Russians) and which still wore them for field dress (like say the Belgians). I have reworded the section to (hopefully) clarify. Cheers Buistr (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Sorry not to have picked it up sooner. HairyWombat 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You're welcome. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Comparison of World War I tanks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment self-deleted) --Guy Macon, 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an edit war, either. I didn't see the other numbers. If you've got them, or they're on the page, I'd suggest putting them all together. Subhead as "production"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean a table, just a summary: "Britain 2,600{source}, France #{source}", so forth. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free :o) Trouble is, some were built before the end of the War but didn't see service, some were completed after the War, and so on. The U.S. carried on building the M1917, so, technically, she built 900-and-something WWI tanks, but none made it to the War, if you follow me. It sounds like a headache. Isn't it close enough for jazz as things stand? Hengistmate (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hengist; I changed the date to July then had second thoughts and changed Ypres to Flanders instead, since Messines was part of the strategy even if semi-detached from 3rd Ypres. I used 'mass' as I'm a bit prejudiced against terms like 'large-scale'; large is a scalar quantity, which makes the phrase a form of pleonasm. 'Mass' has the sense of 'grouping' although it tends to be used to mean 'much' by less pedantic souls than me.Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Brewing problem. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hengistmate. Thanks for making the suggestion of the Ralph Abercromby at meta:Talk:Meetup/Manchester/12 - sounds like a good place to meet. :-) Would you be able to check with your pal to see if there would be space available that could be reserved for the wikimeet? I'd estimate that space would be needed for circa 12-20 people. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a word with George during the week. Stand by. Hengistmate (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hengistmate, thanks again for booking the Ralph Abercromby for the last meeting. Would you be willing to ask them if we could book the back room again for the next meetup, which will be on Saturday 23 June? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike. I'd be happy to. Didn't get any feedback after last one, so wasn't sure if it was to everyone's taste. If all happy, I'll make the call. Regards, J.

Hi. When you recently edited History of the tank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Fixed. Sorry. Hengistmate (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Renault FT, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Please stop removing the "citation needed" marker. This edit is clearly controversial and is heading towards edit warring. If you want to add your new claim, then at least provide a supporting reference for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit isn't controversial at all. It's wrong.Hengistmate (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keith-264/sandbox2

Do you fancy looking through this re: tank matters? There isn't a great deal of detail on tanks but it's always a good idea to consult an aficionado.Keith-264 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keith. Thank you very much for the kind invitation. I am most flattered. I see there isn't much mention of tanks in the article, but they didn't have a great deal to do. I can supply some details of allocation, disposition, etc if you wish. Perhaps the most significant thing is that it was the first use of the new Mk IV, and the Germans were surprised that it resisted their K-round, which had been effective against earlier Marks. A slight problem, though, is that there is an editor who seems to take exception when I offer information on subjects such as this, and becomes rather resentful and obstructive. I'm afraid I can't guarantee that he will not become involved and waste a lot of time and energy. But if you would like me to go ahead, please let me know. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hengistmate, a quick look for accuracy was what I had in mind, thanks. The details might be better on the Mk IV page or a new one on the development of tanks and tank operations during the war, as Messines is a bit full now I've had my mitts on it. I did that page on tactical development which hasn't much on tanks and aeroplanes so there's a deficiency there too. I've got Hoeppner's history of the German air force on order which may help. How are things with your little local difficulty?Keith-264 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me. Hengistmate (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, was that an example of someone finding it easier to dish it than take it?Keith-264 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell. And plenty of previous. Hengistmate (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hengistmate, I thought it was about time we had another Manchester Wikimeet, so I have pulled a date out of a hat and set up a page on Meta. Can you warn your mate in the Abercromby to expect a hoarde of weirdos on 20th October? Hope to see you there, Bazonka (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can you ask him to turn his Wi-Fi on please! Bazonka (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco. As long as everyone's happy with the Ralph as a venue - you don't get many Premier League footballers in there.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Renault FT. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop referring to other editor's contributions as "damage", e.g. "Repaired damage done by 71.95.133.142 and/or 68.185.89.83. " You might disagree with them, they might even be wrong, but WP:AGF reserves accusations of deliberate vandalism or damage for only the clearest cases and these are far from it.

This is a long-term pattern in your editing behaviour, and your inclination to disparage and attack other editors. Such behaviour is not accepted here. You should know this already, and you've certainly been quick to complain of it in others. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a comment which you might like to read at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#November_2012. Biscuittin (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know, I know. Appreciated. Hengistmate (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And at User:My76Strat/RiC. Biscuittin (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hengistmate, I saw your edit comment that the para I removed as uncited is in fact cited by D Fletcher. Could you possibly add a ref (with page no.) to the paragraph? Would avoid confusion and stop others deleting the paragraph for the same reason... Thanks very much - Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can't imagine that people are queueing up to delete the paragraph in question, but Wikipedia is what it is. I assume you don't require a reference confirming that W.C. is a term for "toilet". As regards the other matter, I can offer you a captioned photograph on p100 of The Complete Guide to Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles, by George Forty and Jack Livesey, Anness Publishing, Ltd., 2012, ISBN: 9781780191645. Some people are a little sniffy about comprehensive works such as that, so perhaps a much larger and comprehensively captioned image on p49 of Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the World, Volume One, Cannon Publications, 1998, ISBN 1-899 695 02 8, is preferable. The latter has an introduction by David Fletcher. There are also eye-witness accounts of the technique on pp74 & 117 of Cambrai 1917: The Myth of the First Great Tank Battle, Bryn Hammond, Orion Publishing, 2009, ISBN 978-0-7538-2605-8. Hengistmate (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got this? http://archive.org/details/Janes-WorldWarIiTanksAndFightingVehicles-TheCompleteGuide.pdf

There's some nice pics....Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put in the ref. The bigger point is the uncited state of some other parts of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I don't know if you know, but there is a plan for another Manchester WikiMeet.

I asked a question on the talk page that you may be able to help with.

Thanks,

Yaris678 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right ho. Looking into it.Hengistmate (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Tank. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 19:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
You left this edit summary (presumably aimed at me) on the article on Adrian Helmets:

While Wikipedia, of course, is richer for your supplying the information (a book without a page number is practically useless as a citation), I find the tone used condescending and unnecessary. The section in question is flagged as "Refimprove" of an article tagged (optimistically) as C-class. Revealing the name of the general (my issue which you seem to have found so problematic) might not be in the text you used, but it would add credibility (and maybe God forbid, "interest") to a (at the time) unverified story.
Either way, I do not believe that my (at worst) slightly pedantic request merits such a response. Best wishes, ---Brigade Piron (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Well, if the notes were yours then the comment is aimed at you. No offence meant. Well, only a little. It amuses me constantly that a wildly misinformed article can exist on Wikipedia for a very long time without anyone making any attempt to question or improve it. Then when the facts are presented, everyone suddenly has an opinion, and "editors" who have previously shown no interest are queueing up to argue about semicolons, without ever acknowledging the time and effort one has put in. I knew that photographs existed of Churchill wearing an Adrian, contrary to what somebody had said earlier. I did a bit of digging and found a source. It was that easy. If Mr. Rankin doesn't name the general, I can't help that. Maybe Churchill didn't name the general. What can we do about that? But I think my remarks on the Talk page are of a suitably detailed nature and compare favourably with many on Wikipedia, even if they are deficient in the respect you point out. I could, of course, simply have made up the page number. No one might ever know. I could even have made up the book and the author. Who would check? So there you are. The identity of the generous Frenchman didn't seem to me to be important. If you find it so, please expand as necessary.

BTW, your article on the Garde Civique is interesting. I might quibble a little with the description of the uniforms. IIMSS, it was a little more complicated that that. If you would like some input I should be most happy to share what information I have. The Belgian Army 1914-18 is one of my little specialities. You might offer, in return, to help me with some questions about certain exhibits in the Fort de Loncin. Incidentally, in Sir John Keegan's book The First World War he states that the Garde Civique outnumbered the Belgian regular army. You and I know that is nonsense, but the source is good enough for Wikipedia.

A l'attente de vous lire. Amicalement. Hengistmate (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Hengistmate and civility (yet again). Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hengistmate, those edits to Guy Macon's talk page look like trolling to me. Your comment is only partly on the mark anyway: one could quibble about whether Guy Macon should have removed all their own commentary from your talk page, but as far as I can tell they only removed their own comments and did not violate the guidelines in WP:REDACT. At any rate, I don't see the need for the level of snark you applied. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I have discovered that on Wikipedia being right is no guarantee of anything if you are outnumbered by people who are wrong." agree completely

the so called "free" encyclopedia is not so "free" after all with lots of censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.219.73 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hengistmate, I hadn't seen your posts on his talk page about me 'till now, or the ANI. I guess you saw I ran into similar hypocrisy; he got really aggressive when I pointed out instances where I felt he was breaking the rules, but I managed to get him to back down. I've seen no evidence that he's ever admitted it when he's broken rules. But I do see he backs down when caught. People with certain personalities feel intense psychological pain when under pressure to admit wrongdoing, and so will do almost anything to relieve or avoid it. --Elvey (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your comment at Grantham Talk. Acabashi (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Landships Committee Just had a look at this and referenced it as far as it can be, as I'm pottering around after doing the Somme main page. I don't suppose you could recommend tank pages that I can link with Flers–Courcelette? I'm thinking about where to put material on the creation of the tank so as not to overburden the page. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a succinct passage in the OH which I was tempted to use but I'm trying to avoid spreading myself thin so I just did the references as far as they applied. When I had another look at Flers-Courcelette the links to tank pages seemed pretty good for the technical detail but I wonder if there's a page on the development other than the landships one. PS I have this page on watch so it would be simpler to rely here. Thanaks and hello to the loved one (and the wife) ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Let's start again. Go through it one more time, because I don't understand what you're after. See? - AD is right. I am stupid. I just don't know anything. Hengistmate (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which tank pages do you recommend for links to the Flers-Courcelette page, which aren't already there? OK, thanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia (WWI) articles should link to the Flers-Courcelette article? Is that it?Hengistmate (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, TANK pages! Have you been on the sherry (and if not, why not?)? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any Wikipedia tank articles that should link to F-C. I've got it now.Hengistmate (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Miss Blennerhasset! ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Been a bit busy. All I've managed to find is these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank (second par could link) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A7V (first par of History section). Will try to find time to look for some more. Part of reason for being busy is editing script for TV doco on a subject close to our hearts. Will reveal more as the centenary approaches.

In the meantime, if you care to google "Fragile High Self-Esteem" it might throw some light on the bit of a problem that has cropped up from time to time in the last couple of years. Chin chin, Hengistmate (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] Something like this? It seems to be a euphemism for low confidence. Could it be something to do with Dominion drive-by flagging? ;O). In a bizarre coincidence I watched a you tube yesterday about the A7v which has been matched with a replica Mk IV. I hope your film makers resist the temptation to show the same old footage and dodgy CGI, I saw a bloke crapping out of a CGI Stuka a while back....

I've decided to have a rest from the long Somme pages and fill in a few more of the actions/captures so will be working on the one for Gommecourt, although a diversion towards Delville Wood might occur. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I understand what you were trying to say with that revert at Denis Law. However, for consistency's sake, I have restored the "day month year" date format, as that is that format used throughout the rest of the article. I hope you understand. – PeeJay 22:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

. . . nichts Neues.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.118.195 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Estienne was born at Condé en Barrois (now [[Chée|Les Hauts-de-Chée]]} in the [[Meuse]] valley. He was admitted to the ''[[École Polytechnique]]'' (the French Military

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good time for what? GiantSnowman 10:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you want me to block? WP:AIV is the place to go, as I will not be blocking without further evidence if disruption (two edits yesterday is not enough). GiantSnowman 12:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reference regarding the spelling of the murdered girl's Christian name. I totally accept your source; but the majority of references including other reports in the Manchester Evening News continue to spell the name as "Jackie", which could be a problem for anyone researching the case. The link you posted is interesting, do you know if there have been any further developments? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holt Manufacturing Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holt (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) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tanks in World War I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (the British [[Gun Carrier Mark I|Gun Carrier Mk I]]) and the first [[armoured personnel carrier]] (the British [[Mark IX tank|Mk IX]]} were also constructed in World War I.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tanks in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M1917 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Mark V tank, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I merely corrected some of the points in the rather incoherent argument. Please try to stop lashing out, Mr. Dingley. You just made another mistake connected with this topic, that's all. I know it hurts, but just leave it. You've made bigger ones. Don't go raking it all up. Hengistmate (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle surprise. Hengistmate (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hengist, I hope you aren't setting yourself up for more trouble than you deserve. All the best, Keith.Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I really care. Rather like yourself, I just potter around trying to curb some of the worst excesses of this misbegotten venture and insert a bit of historical fact. Damage limitation, I suppose you could call it. I haven't got the time and don't feel the need to spend all day and much of the night plotting against other "editors". I suppose this is a time to look to one's wikifriends, but I think there's only you, whereas others can call on reinforcements from many parts of the autistic spectrum. I find that a reasonable guide is how much info about yourself you put on your Userpage. Why not hand it back to the people who brought us "Joseph Hawker - the father of the Tank," and "With Patton at Cambrai!" and so much more? I know that the dual role of Wikipedia is to dispense dubious information and to provide therapy for a section of the population, but I'm not sure of the proportions. If Wikipedia were to fold, things would carry on and my life would still have some purpose. It's the others I worry about.

Hey! What about one last foray, one final moment of glory? The brigade at Balaclava; El Cid beneath the walls of Valencia; or maybe Butch and Sundance. The film version, obviously. Waddya say? Hengistmate (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you were writing like someone who feels rather depressed. Perhaps you need a holiday? I know I do.Keith-264 (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Ow queer! I'll see what happens to the talk page tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault FT, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M1917. 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) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to notice that this was a direct quote ! Perhaps to avoid other lazy idiots like me doing the same thing, you could put [sic] after french. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It crossed my mind, but then I thought it was obvious that it was an extract from a soldier's letter, and that inserting a "sic" would jar a bit. For the time being, I'm inclined to leave it and see how many lazy idiots are knocking about. If it keeps happening, I'll reconsider.

BTW, someone being self-deprecating on Wikipedia? Why, I never heard of such a thing. Chin chin. Hengistmate (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1st Hussars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M1917. 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) 12:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any information on this? Was the designer the same Melvin Johnson of the better known Johnson rifle? There's supposed to be a patent involving this MG, but I can't find it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in The Big Boy's Book of WAR!!!, pub Pressdram, ISBN 71.95.133.142. Hengistmate (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peckett and Sons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• built over 400 locomotives, when they were taken over by Thomas Peckett in 1880date=October 2014}becoming '''Peckett and Sons, Atlas Engine Works, Bristol'''. The company acquired limited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edit to British heavy tanks of World War I. Please be aware that the date format '5-10-2009' could be interpreted as either '5 October 2009' or 'May 10, 2009'. The only date formats allowed are '5 October 2009', 'October 5, 2009' and '2009-10-05' (ISO 8601). Thanks.  Stepho  talk  07:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting that. If you'll forgive me, you're really telling the wrong bloke. It's a very old reference that I carried over from Mark V tank. The date format was something done a good few years ago. I thought it best that two accounts of the same incident should contain broadly similar facts, something that is not always guaranteed on Wikipedia. In fact, the date thing is the least of the problems with these references; they don't support assertions made by other editors, and really ought not to be there. I think I'll quietly remove them at some point. Thanks again. Hengistmate (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a peek here to see what they had to say about late 1917 [2], a bit about 3rd Ypres, not much about Cambrai but interesting anyway.Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How very kind. An impressive oeuvre. I thank you. A discussion was recently had on KuK units sent to the Western Front and their involvement or otherwise in serious fighting. Could you direct me to any relevant information in the OH? Hengistmate (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a contents and index for each pdf but I think vol 7 is the place to look.Keith-264 (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. No infantry, but a lot of artillery. Intriguing. Enquiries continue. Vielen Dank. Hengistmate (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hengistmate. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 23:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this about? The appearance of Andy Dingley's name fills one with apprehension. Is it yet another of his mendacious, vengeful complaints of the sort that often appear shortly after he has not prevailed in a discussion on matters of editing? If so, I am beginning to tire of them. Can't something be done to stop his hounding? Hengistmate (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.237.198 (talk) [reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Holt Manufacturing Company page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A7V may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[http://www.landships.freeservers.com/emhar_a7v.htm German A7V "Sturmpanzer"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.59.111 (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Now added a ref as the correct version ("iron chapel" rather than "iron hat") is counterintuitive. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake also appears in Kettle hat, but I need to stop meddling in things of which I know little.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 07:20, 17 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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hammer filmography

added a link pointing to Phantom Ship

Time Passages

added a link pointing to Marie Celeste

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom Ship link is sorted. The Time Passages one isn't. It's a complicated thing, made more difficult by the disambiguation page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Celeste. The connection between Mary and Marie Celeste is too complex for a disambiguation, which is too simplistic. "Marie Celeste" should be an article in its own right, which is what it was before someone rather unwisely decided it was a stub. It was simply an article that was only as long as it needed to be, something Wikipedia could do with more of. The point is that Al Stewart made the common mistake of thinking that the Mary Celeste (which is the reference he wanted to make) was called the Marie Celeste. In a way, the disamb page is sort of OK, because the ref in Time Passages refers to both entries. But things will be resolved in the near future. There's a lot of work to be done on the recent Featured Article Mary Celeste and on the Marie Celeste article, but we'll get there. Assuming everyone pitches in, collaboratively. Hengistmate (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have reopened the thread to refute the latest accusations against us. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1973–74 Manchester United F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Everton. 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) 09:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling_again_from_Hengistmate Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate. Thank you.

86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Talk:Plasticine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another administrator has questioned my block. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.) If you post a message that shows awareness of why you were blocked and indicates that you will not do similar in future, we should be able to get you unblocked fairly quickly. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Mark V tank. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 16:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mark V tank shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Scr★pIron^IV 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Mark V tank, you may be blocked from editing.

• Please do not remove sourced content from Wikipedia pages, particularly when they are contrary to the consensus of multiple editors. Continuing to do so could result in sanctions, up to and including the loss of editing privileges. Scr★pIron^IV 19:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may be interested in Oxford Wikimedia Meetup Number 38. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hengistmate. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, sorry for reverting the one about a synchronised gun not hitting the propeller - the moral is, never revert on the strength of a descriptive edit summary! At least I put it straight back... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted this out, but please do not copy pages over redirects again. If you wish to reverse a redirect and are unable to do it by moving the page, you can tag the redirect with {{db-move|Page name to be moved over redirect|reason why the page should be moved}} and it will be three clicks for an admin to deal with it. Copying the page over makes a mess of the page histories and takes a couple of minutes of work to fix. Please don't cause extra work for the poor overworked admins :) —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Mary Celeste. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 07:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've got another one. Hengistmate (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hengistmate. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in disruptive editing as you did at Charles Lightoller (see here). Quis separabit? 00:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you've been vindicated (see [3]). Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a saying: "If all else fails, read the instructions." :) Apology accepted. You might like to look at the article again for recent developments.

Hello, Hengistmate. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I undid your edit. The dates were given in the French article used as a source. If you have more accurate information from another source, please indicate it. Thank you.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See TALK. Hengistmate (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hengistmate. I've restored the title of Death Cab for Cutie, and thought it would be helpful to explain why. We follow Wikipedia:Article titles when deciding on an article title, and in most cases are able to use the most natural and concise name to identify the topic. Sometimes two topics may share the same name - such as the song: Death Cab for Cutie (song) and the band: Death Cab for Cutie (band), so we need to disambiguate between the two. However, if one of those topics, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" then we call that article the Primary Topic, and that article's name is not disambiguated - when putting in the search term, the reader will go directly to that article. We will put a hatnote at the top of the article for the other readers searching for the other topic.

To help us decide which is the primary topic we use a number of factors, mainly the number of readers - in the past month the article on the band got 37,747 pageviews, while the song got 2,728 pageviews. To find pageviews, click on "History" then click on pageviews. It also helps to look at the articles that link in - the article on the song gets less than 40 links, while the article on the band gets over a 1,000. To find links click on What links here. When deciding if an article name should be moved (changed), these are the factors to consider, and if unsure, then it can be useful to set up a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion on the article talkpage. I hope that helps. If you're considering a page move in future, I'll be happy to give some advice, just get in touch. Regards, SilkTork (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of British innovations and discoveries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Wilson. 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) 07:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hengistmate/Archive 1, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Hengistmate/Archive 1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Hengistmate/Archive 1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Qwirkle (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]