I have fixed up the problem. You could have too, the procedure was to move "Skip bifferty" (using the "Move" tab, to the right of the history tab at the top of the page) to Skip Bifferty. Have a nice day :-) --Commander Keane 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-04-21T17:04:00.000Z","author":"Commander Keane","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Commander_Keane-2006-04-21T17:04:00.000Z-Skip_Bifferty","replies":[]}}-->

I wasn't quite sure which action of mine you were referring to. I'm guessing that it is that I marked Harry for cleanup. We have a style guide for these page: Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

Basically, disambiguation pages exist to get people to their desired location. Someone types in Harry to the search bar - what were they looking for? Not Harry Cohn. Not Harry Connick Jr. Maybe Prince Harry. Certainly Harry (album). Probably not Dirty Harry etc. So some entries should be removed from the page, hence my call for cleanup.--Commander Keane 15:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-04-28T15:41:00.000Z","author":"Commander Keane","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Commander_Keane-2006-04-28T15:41:00.000Z-Harry","replies":[]}}-->

"Why is Sir Michael Havers and his sons Philip and Nigel referred to as "Honourable". Is there a relinquished peerage somewhere that we have not been told about? "Honourable" is a courtesy title conferred on certain sons of the peerage, does this include life peers?"

The second is correct the former not so. Lord Havers is The Rt. Hon. Lord Havers , of St Edmundsbury in the County of Suffolk. His sons are Hon. due to their fathers title.Alci12 17:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC) =[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-05-08T17:16:00.000Z","author":"Alci12","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alci12-2006-05-08T17:16:00.000Z-Hon.","replies":[]}}-->

A number of Wikipedians have come together and formed the WikiProject Throughbred racing to help to expand and better organise information in articles and categories related to the sport of thoroughbred racing. As a past contributor to horse racing articles, we invite you to consider becoming a participant in the project, and/or adding the page to your watchlist so that you become aware, and can join any future horse racing discussions, which may be of interest to you. Regards - Cuddy Wifter 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-19T03:42:00.000Z","author":"Cuddy Wifter","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cuddy_Wifter-2006-07-19T03:42:00.000Z-Throughbred_racing_project","replies":[]}}-->

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-08-16T09:36:00.000Z","author":"OrphanBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-OrphanBot-2006-08-16T09:36:00.000Z-Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Berra.gif","replies":[]}}-->

Sweetalkinguy, WikiProject British Royalty wants you! WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Thank you for the message. I'll look forward to seeing the changes you mention over time. If his tale is like the one you compare it to, I'm sure it's quite a story. Erechtheus 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-19T06:17:00.000Z","author":"Erechtheus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Erechtheus-2006-09-19T06:17:00.000Z-Cyril_Lord","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks for uploading Image:Mug02.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-10-01T17:07:00.000Z","author":"OrphanBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-OrphanBot-2006-10-01T17:07:00.000Z-Image_tagging_for_Image:Mug02.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

Please, don't use accents and other special charactes at the indexing of articles, as you did in Pascual Pérez (boxing), because it disrupts the proper sorting due to a technical problem; accented vowels are considered to be alphabetically after Z (Placing Puerta before Pérez). Thanks, and good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 07:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-10-16T07:44:00.000Z","author":"Marianocecowski","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Marianocecowski-2006-10-16T07:44:00.000Z-Indexing","replies":[],"displayName":"Mariano"}}-->

Thanks for the appology. If I don't get worse than you gave me, I'll be doing allright. I had forgotten it.

As to the railway: it was certainly moribund by the time of Beeching's report in 1963 but I think it did remain open to use (just) until 1965 (J.D.Birkbeck p. 116). The station was demolished in 1964 (JDB p.116 and John Rhodes p. 43). The Essendine line closed in June 1951 (JR p. 43 & JDB p 116). The Sleaford timetabled service had gone in 1930 (JDB p. 116) but that line remained as in effect, a siding reaching to Billingborough, until 1965 (JDB).

The Castle site extends from Church Walk (the river opposite the Abbey is a remnant of its outermost moat) to Manor Lane. The revetted ditch opposite the electricity sub-station is the counterpart of the Church Walk Eau. In the north, this ditch lies under the pavement and shop fronts on the south side of West Street and in the south, from the north boundary of the Red Hall to the kink in Manor Lane south of the gate which stands across it. The whole, including these outer works, extends to 47½ acres or 17.5 hectares. The brick structure around the War Memorial stands in the outer bailey (The East Bailey as it was known) alongside the site of the brink of the inner bailey moat. The water in South Street is the East Bailey moat.

The parts of the originally extensive, water defences which remain have done so because they were needed in their other function as the mill pool and tail race for Baldock's Mill, which stands on the site of the castle mill. (RJP 17:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-10-21T17:45:00.000Z","author":"RJP","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-RJP-2006-10-21T17:45:00.000Z-Bourne_(castle_and_station)","replies":[]}}-->

The cited page now has a scan of a national newspaper report of the incident, as you can appreciate it was only Monday so media coverage is still coming and I will update when i can... and Gregg was a member of Sinn Féin/The Worker's Party which was in fact one party (in Wikipedia as Official Sinn Féin).. RegardsStevecull 14:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-09T14:17:00.000Z","author":"Stevecull","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Stevecull-2006-11-09T14:17:00.000Z-Galloway","replies":[]}}-->

Hi there. I've got a little request. Since you've added those color templates to your user page, you are listed as being (through categories) a shade of many different colors. That is probably not a good thing when there are guidelines like WP:SELF that we're supposed to follow, despite my respect for your appreciation of those templates. Would you please substitute those templates on your page and delete the categories from the resulting wikicode? Regards, Nihiltres 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-14T00:03:00.000Z","author":"Nihiltres","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nihiltres-2006-11-14T00:03:00.000Z-Problem_with_your_user_page...","replies":["c-Nihiltres-2006-11-15T18:17:00.000Z-Nihiltres-2006-11-14T00:03:00.000Z"]}}-->

The main problem is that your user page being in non-user categories is that it's a general violation of WP:SELF. Check that link out, it's good to know - I only found out about it a month and a half ago. The general idea is that since your page is part of the Wikipedia project and not an article, it should not appear alongside articles in categories meant for articles. For example, if you looked through a physical encyclopedia and found an editor's phone number in the index, you'd probably find it odd. If you prefer having the templates appear on the page, then substituting the templates and removing the categories from the resulting code works well. If you just want to remember the names of each, you can use the {{tl}} template. Used with the syntax {{tl|NameOfTemplate}}, it produces {{NameOfTemplate}}. You can then use a list. You could even use both approaches simultaneously, as in =={{tl|template}}== (newline) {{subst:template}} (kill categories) Hope this helps :) Nihiltres 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-15T18:17:00.000Z","author":"Nihiltres","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Nihiltres-2006-11-15T18:17:00.000Z-Nihiltres-2006-11-14T00:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Nihiltres-2006-11-16T18:49:00.000Z-Nihiltres-2006-11-15T18:17:00.000Z"]}}-->

Noticed your last userpage change since I watched your talk, and your page is looking awesome. Nihiltres 18:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-16T18:49:00.000Z","author":"Nihiltres","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Nihiltres-2006-11-16T18:49:00.000Z-Nihiltres-2006-11-15T18:17:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I have done a bit to the page though there is plenty more which could be done. The pictures would enliven it. I think the railway might be better dealt with separately. There, a picture of the weighbridge house at Edenham station (by the 30mph sigh) might be useful, as would a view of the tracks' approach to Bytham. The embankments and cuttings might generally be a bit overgrown to show up effectively. (RJP 00:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-24T00:26:00.000Z","author":"RJP","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-RJP-2006-11-24T00:26:00.000Z-Edenham","replies":[]}}-->

Having looked at you remarks on the M&GN talk page, and as the originator of the diagram, I have studied the sources you suggest and OS and altered the diagram accordingly. If the Earl's/M&GN bridge is the wrong way round either change it or just say. Thanks for the heads up! Britmax (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-01T18:19:00.000Z","author":"Britmax","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Britmax-2008-02-01T18:19:00.000Z-Edenham","replies":[]}}-->

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-11T09:43:00.000Z","author":"OrphanBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-OrphanBot-2007-01-11T09:43:00.000Z-Image_tagging_for_Image:Harrywragg.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks for uploading Image:Guselen01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-27T09:15:00.000Z","author":"BJBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BJBot-2007-01-27T09:15:00.000Z-Orphaned_fair_use_image_(Image:Guselen01.jpg)","replies":[]}}-->

Your additions have been removed per biographies of libing persons in that they do not cite any reliable sources, nor are they written from a neutral point of view. Among other things, such subjective words and phrases as "unusual" or an "exact contemporary" requires expert commentary that's already been published. Please write me if you have any questions. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-02-05T14:55:00.000Z","author":"RadioKirk","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-RadioKirk-2007-02-05T14:55:00.000Z-Piers_Morgan","replies":[],"displayName":"u"}}-->

Does this edit summary mean you intend to fight the efforts of editors who are working to make this and other articles compliant with the verifiability and neutrality standards required by an encyclopedia? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-02-05T23:47:00.000Z","author":"RadioKirk","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-RadioKirk-2007-02-05T23:47:00.000Z-Piers_Morgan","replies":[],"displayName":"u"}}-->

Hey - I see you have removed template {{The Apprentice UK}} from several articles on celebrities appearing on the show. You might like to contribute to the discussion at Template talk:The Apprentice UK where I propose removing this template from the celebrity articles concerned. Thanks _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-03-10T10:06:00.000Z","author":"UkPaolo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-UkPaolo-2007-03-10T10:06:00.000Z-Proposed_removal_of_the_The_Apprentice_UK_template","replies":[]}}-->

Just to let you know, I responded to your edit on the talk page. Pan Dan 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-03-16T22:33:00.000Z","author":"Pan Dan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pan_Dan-2007-03-16T22:33:00.000Z-Harry_2","replies":[]}}-->

I notice you added an inline country flag when writing Pride & Clark. Can I ask you to desist from adding flag inline in the main article text. They;re just about tolerable in infoboxes. They are never tolerable in the main text. See this diff if I'm not being clear about my meaning. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thank you for uploading Image:Mug02.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-08T03:18:00.000Z","author":"Jusjih","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jusjih-2007-12-08T03:18:00.000Z-Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Mug02.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks for uploading Image:Guselen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-01-02T14:35:00.000Z","author":"BetacommandBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BetacommandBot-2008-01-02T14:35:00.000Z-Disputed_fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Guselen.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

Hi there - I've provisionally reverted your change to the Lincolnshire navbox back to my version that included links covering the whole of Lincolnshire, including our poor benighted northern colonies (joke). My reasoning: other county templates (inc. Somerset, Durham, Yorkshire) relate to the entire ceremonial county, not just to the bit under county council control ... even if the ceremonial county includes areas in other regions or police authority areas to the rump. Now: if you strongly feel that N Lincs and NE Lincs should be treated separately then so be it (although I'm not sure just how useful or enlightening a Grimsby-only navbox would be) - but if so then I'd contend that we should go about changing the navboxes for the other counties too, in the spirit of consistency. TheVenerableBede (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-20T11:18:00.000Z","author":"TheVenerableBede","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TheVenerableBede-2008-02-20T11:18:00.000Z-Lincolnshire_navbox","replies":[]}}-->

Hello Guy - I don't want to get bogged down in the old arguments about the relevance or otherwise of the sixteen different types of "county"(!) - I'm much more interested in the consistency of the information on Wikipedia and its usefulness to users who may not live in Lincolnshire (any part of it).

If you think it's more appropriate to have a separate infobox for each unitary authority / top-level administrative area, then far be it from me to stand in your way. I just think it's important that:

• All counties are treated the same, avoiding a patchwork approach.
• The level of navigation is appropriate for the information contained within. If the boxes are linking to pages which relates to local government status and services, then obviously your solution fits the bill. But an awful lot of the genuinely encyclopedic pages (history, geography - rather than the sometime pedantic listings of current administrative status) relate to Lincolnshire in its entirety.
• That it's suitable for users who may not be familiar with, or indeed even care about, the finer points of UK local governance. Who in the world is actually interested in the fact that there are three top-level Lincolnshire authorities, other than local gov't afficionados (or rabid supporters of the traditional counties), people waiting for their wheelie bins to be taken out, and Peter Levy?
• That it's useful beyond the field of local governance.
• That it's stable over time - this worries me, given the current changes to local gov't in Northumberland, Cheshire, Durham etc. I'd hate to see us having to change all of these boxes when Lincolnshire (County Council area) is itself split into 2 or 3 unitary authorities in a couple of years' time.
• That it recognises that Lincs, N Lincs, and NE Lincs, while currently separate entities (for the purposes of taking the bins out) share a lot in terms of history, geography and culture (with a small c.).

As I'm sure you're aware, Lincolnshire has always been a region made up of separate administrative entities, rather than a single "county" in the narrowest sense - my contention is that nothing's changed since the days of Lindsey, Holland and Kesteven - Lincolnshire is still a 'thing' which would be recognised by most people as a county, even if its servies are provided by 3 separate entities.

Whether the Lord-Lieutenant of Lincolnshire is doing his/her job properly or not is no concern of mine!

I'm sure we can find a solution that works. What about summat like this?

That raises the unfortunate aspect that there's a NE Lincs page and a N Lincs page which relate to their status as local gov't entities and their narrow geography, but that the Lincolnshire page manages to amalgamate discussion "Lincolnshire" from the Humber to the Wash and "Lincolnshire" the current county in one article. See what I mean about inconsistency?

Fancy taking that one on too?

TheVenerableBede (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-22T10:57:00.000Z","author":"TheVenerableBede","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TheVenerableBede-2008-02-22T10:57:00.000Z-Lincolnshire_navbox","replies":[]}}-->

what is the difference? just curious, from your user page. Unrandomperson (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-30T20:52:00.000Z","author":"Unrandomperson","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Unrandomperson-2008-03-30T20:52:00.000Z-Fuschia_vs._Magenta","replies":[]}}-->

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-31T07:41:00.000Z","author":"Addbot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Addbot-2008-08-31T07:41:00.000Z-Oxford_Wikimania_2010_and_Wikimedia_UK_v2.0_Notice","replies":[]}}-->

A tag has been placed on Harry Levene requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 a copy be emailed to you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-23T22:22:00.000Z","author":"Timtrent","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Timtrent-2008-12-23T22:22:00.000Z-Speedy_deletion_of_Harry_Levene","replies":[],"displayName":"Fiddle Faddle"}}-->

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pixie Lott, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pixie Lott was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pixie Lott, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-03-02T07:40:00.000Z","author":"CSDWarnBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-CSDWarnBot-2009-03-02T07:40:00.000Z-Repost_of_Pixie_Lott","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks for uploading File:Freddie03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-05-06T15:58:00.000Z","author":"Aspects","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aspects-2009-05-06T15:58:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_image_(File:Freddie03.jpg)","replies":[]}}-->

File:Guselen.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Gus Elen If It Wasnt for the Ouses In Between.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Gus Elen If It Wasnt for the Ouses In Between.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-06T23:24:00.000Z","author":"Erwin85Bot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Erwin85Bot-2009-10-06T23:24:00.000Z-NowCommons:_File:Guselen.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

Regarding this file that you uploaded; I don't suppose that you have the whole book? Mine is the one published in 1914, the maps date from 1901-14. The relevant map is very slightly different; I've made a note at File:Mgnjrsig01.jpg#Summary. If you do have the others, it might be useful to scan and upload those too. The 1914 set may be found on Commons, in the subcategories of commons:Category:Railways Junctions Diagram 1914, so if you have a set published in (say) 1935, they could go into a new category - commons:Category:Railways Junctions Diagram 1935.

BTW they're not primarily for signalmen (who had much more detailed diagrams) - they were drawn by the Railway Clearing House to assist themselves (but also other railway clerks) in their principal role apportioning revenue - many rates were mileage based. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-02T19:49:00.000Z","author":"Redrose64","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Redrose64-2010-06-02T19:49:00.000Z-Railway_Junction_Diagrams","replies":[]}}-->

Thank you for uploading File:Bournegs01.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 01:46, 23 December 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. Kelly ^hi! 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-12-23T01:46:00.000Z","author":"Kelly","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kelly-2010-12-23T01:46:00.000Z-File_source_problem_with_File:Bournegs01.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

Thank you for uploading File:Lyttleton01.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 05:22, 27 December 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. Kelly ^hi! 05:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-12-27T05:22:00.000Z","author":"Kelly","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kelly-2010-12-27T05:22:00.000Z-File_source_problem_with_File:Lyttleton01.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

Thank you for uploading File:Gilmore01.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 05:24, 27 December 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. Kelly ^hi! 05:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-12-27T05:24:00.000Z","author":"Kelly","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kelly-2010-12-27T05:24:00.000Z-File_source_problem_with_File:Gilmore01.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-08T03:27:00.000Z","author":"Courcelles","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Courcelles-2011-01-08T03:27:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_image_File:Brownjug.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-03-15T19:05:00.000Z","author":"LivingBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LivingBot-2011-03-15T19:05:00.000Z-Notification:_changes_to_\"Mark_my_edits_as_minor_by_default\"_preference","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks for uploading File:Mgnjrpic.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 [email protected], 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 [email protected].

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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-10-09T11:18:00.000Z","author":"Kelly","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kelly-2014-10-09T11:18:00.000Z-File_permission_problem_with_File:Mgnjrpic.jpg","replies":[]}}-->

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-03-28T23:27:00.000Z","author":"Stefan2","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Stefan2-2015-03-28T23:27:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_image_File:Bournetown.gif","replies":[]}}-->

The article Private Eye products has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

seemingly NN line of products - no assertion of importance whatsoever.

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. The Dissident Aggressor 19:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-06-23T19:09:00.000Z","author":"DissidentAggressor","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DissidentAggressor-2015-06-23T19:09:00.000Z-Proposed_deletion_of_Private_Eye_products","replies":[]}}-->

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-11-23T13:37:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2015-11-23T13:37:00.000Z-ArbCom_elections_are_now_open!","replies":[]}}-->

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-21T17:24:00.000Z","author":"B-bot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-B-bot-2020-04-21T17:24:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_image_File:Mgnjrpic.jpg","replies":[]}}-->