Welcome!

Hello, Sjwells53, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Addhoc 10:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjwells53! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as needing either a little attention to style, updating, or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see Talk:River Stour, Worcestershire and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjwells53, your picture "The church and entrance to parish close" is a bit too dark. If you wish, I could improve it and upload a new version. And thanks for having tidied up the captions for my photos. Tango7174 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, you've been adding some rivers to the List of rivers of Europe. Please note that this list is only for the most notable rivers of Europe. See the lead of the list: "For clarity, only rivers longer than 100 km (or very significant in another way) are shown in this list." Markussep ^Talk 12:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sjwells53! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort which aims to create, expand, and maintain articles related to the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of England. Thanks!

Metabaronic (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sjwells53. You made some edits in Mercia under the section "Penda and the Mercian Supremacy". This section is a summary of a historical period focusing on its most powerful kings, and is intentionally lacking in detail - detailed changes should be added under the main articles.

Rather than undoing your edits I've moved the two paragraphs you produced into a new section entitled "Mercian religion" which you may want to clean up. There is not yet a main article for Mercian religion, but if you have a larger number of edits to make you might want to consider creating one and expanding your contributions there/

Finally, can you include citations for all the sources you have used? Many thanks! Metabaronic (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that a Mercian Religion article has now been created, incorporating most of your previous contributions to Mercia.Metabaronic (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the catch on the Littleton portrait. My error. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sjwells53 you graph on Brewood is cited as an example on the page Wikipedia:How_to_create_graphs_for_Wikipedia_articles#Gnumeric. Can you provide the source gnumeric file that you made to generate that graph? I'd like to use gnumeric to make similar graphs but I'm not sure how. Spundun (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, can you please email it to me? my address is <myusername> at gmail --Spundun (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work on improving Penkridge and related articles.  An optimist on the run! 15:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo! You commented on Talk:Thomas Butler (bishop)#Drunkeness that Butler "vocal[ly] support[ed]" Dr John (this first time presumably). I'd love to add that information, but I can't find a source. Do you know where we can find one? Cheers DBD 22:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not hesitate to seek my help on issues such as arose with Thomas Whorwood. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just written an article on Prestwood (Kinver). If you can improve this from the sources that you have eben using please do so. However the dispute of 1597 was certainly not concerned with ironmaking: there were no ironworks at Prestwood. There was a wireworks on the other side of the Stour, but much later and Greensforge is nearby. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Wombourn railway station. Thanks. Keomike (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to say that's a nice piece (with accompanying photographs) on Humphrey Swynnerton. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I love stumbling upon the little corners of wikipedia, especially the ones with well-done local history. I enjoyed the piece, and I imagine quite a number of others have, too. Keep up the good work! Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Great work on improving Jürgen Moltmann back in 2009. Was just reading it earlier and I learned a lot from it. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message about the Tame, glad you liked the new Geobox - it was the first time I had done one with a twin source so I was concerned it would look a bit large, but it does fit into the article quite well. Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on the Tame, has been used to justify a change in the use of the Geobox-river. Please see Template_talk:Infobox_river#Geobox.2C_again if you want to comment, as you may have a view. Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you seem to have attempted a move of the Richard Morgan page by copying and pasting the entire content of the page, however, this is not the preferred method. Please see WP:MOVE - if the whole content is to be moved it is much preferred to do a proper page move which will preserve the history of edits and attributions in the correct location. The page in question has already been rectified. I hope this makes sense, do let me know if I can help further. --_nonsense ferret 19:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to this comment (diff):

No-one will be fooled by the apparent naivety with which you have made an ethnocentric and ideologically-motivated change of this sort. Sjwells53 (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean (I must be naive)! So please explain further. -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the creation of Richard Ottley, very interesting Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Battle of the Somme graves.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Cartier Plaque.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any time - always happy to be of help. Especially regarding such a well-formed article; excellent work.

Happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you have undone the edits I made to the Haughmond Abbey page, despite including references? regards Cbowsie (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC) -The reference given did not contradict previous work. Rather it clarified sentences with precise dates and names which only stated 'probably around' and the like. The book was written in 1995 by a well known and elderly historian in County Down and therefore it is understandable that a webpage for his book does not exist. regards Cbowsie (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me being sloppy: should've read the history/talk page(s) before blithely adding the image. Thanks for fixing it. SamKlai (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit comment: "The point is there is a contradiction in the secondary sources, although O and B always deserve respect." To be clear, my tag was not meant to suggest that you're incorrect, not to make any real assertion at all—hence my used of question marks in my own preceding edit comment. I'm just not sure to what degree it is kosher under Wikipedia's original reserch policies for us editors to draw this sort of attention to inconsistencies in the referenced sources without citing a source for the inconsistency as well, which is what seems to be implied in my reading of WP:ORIGINALSYN. That in itself is somewhat frustrating. (BTW, the extensive work you've done on several articles about such fairly obscure Protectorate figures is rather impressive. And probably also rather thankless. So thanks.) —Geoff Capp (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a member of the WikiProject - I just saw a spate of talkpages that wanted creating and went for it. I may well have made a mistake in marking some of them as stub class, as I don't remember off the top of my head how I generated the article list I used; I'd say just go ahead and remove that assessment if you're not sure it belongs. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and see if I can isolate the offending articles and scrub it from them. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interested in the same subjects as yourself. The Medieval history of Wolverhampton. The river tributaries and the mysteries of the area. I think your line of inquiry is matching my own thoughts, that I dare not articulate for fear of ridicule. Our research overlaps by looking at your entries on Wikipedia. Mariegriffiths (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have been working on Edward Sutton, 5th Baron Dudley and Theodosia Harington - please ignore if this is not you. Their third daughter Margaret married a Miles Hobart, but not it seems the Buckinghamshire one or yet another Miles Hobart who was MP, but someone more obscure from the Blickling family, who lived in Norwich and nearby, where Margaret's mother Theodosia stayed and her older sister Mary Countess of Home visited from Scotland. This I find in Theodosia's will, which includes three children of Margaret and Miles Hobart, TNA Prob/11/215. May be of interest. Unoquha (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Bartholomew's Church, Tong, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages High Mass and Corpus Christi (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) 09:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:St Chad shrine icon.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 15:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:LASTCRYPT.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low resolution.

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. Kelly ^hi! 15:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Amiens Drapers chapel.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, blurry.

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. Kelly ^hi! 13:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Amiens cathedral weeping angel.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, blurry.

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. Kelly ^hi! 13:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Bartholomew's Church, Tong, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Steward and Hawking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Bartholomew's Church, Tong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buildwas Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homage (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) 09:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenal work adding that endowments table, thank you. I have subsequently created the Ewan Christian category, thanks for your prompt. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buildwas Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seneca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Halesowen Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Worcester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Halesowen Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Halesowen Abbey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lincoln, Bullock, Heifer, Hogget and Ciborium

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2019 (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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (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) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]