BSTemple

§hep • ^Talk 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes says that "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis" is usually enough for demonstrating notability. As this person played in a professional league, importance is indicated and a speedy is not called for. The AfD process is the appropriate one, and thank you for your kind words. -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

They are all from Talk:Iain Ward, a page which was deleted. -- Avi (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the barnstar   -- Avi (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing the AFD to my attention but sorry but I have to agree with the nomination. I have responded on the AFD with some information on policy guidelines why the edit isn't acceptable. Regards. Justin talk 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem, seriously there isn't much information in the article that is worth saving and trivia is generally discouraged. Whilst I appreciate work went into it, with good intentions, and your good intentions in trying to make something of it (done the same myself), there have been a number of people pushing that book into the article recently. The first time simply adding the ref to the references section even though it clearly hadn't been used. That put it on my radar and in fact other editors have tried to shoe horn that edit in and that is what I was referring to. Justin talk 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have temporarily semi-protected Lincoln, Lincolnshire as the history shows excessive IP vandalism. Please keep an eye on Lincolnshire, and require sources for any additions. Lastly, if you believe that possibly vandalistic users are actually the same person, that is why we have WP:SPI. Thanks and good luck! -- Avi (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed and deleted. -- Avi (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi BSTemple, I see your working round some of the Lincolnshire articles, adding an assessment. I original tagged a lot of them but at the time did not rate them as quite a lot had layout issues and reference as lot had been graded Start by other projects prior to the grade C being introduce and were probably C rather than Start with a bit of a tidy up or possibly B. Some of the B rated articles were poor for a B in my opinion needed cleaning up or reviewing to maintain B status. (poor layouts, no refs, junk and spam links)- several editors are cleaning them up steadily. A lot of the UK Geo rating relate back to 2007 from what I had seen, so articles have changed quite abit. (Unfortunately I have not got back to the task due to outside circumstances so congratulations for picking it up.)

Above statement is just to let you known my thoughts on the existing assessments in general and that I think some are wrong in case you are just filling them out with the values used in other projects, as some argue on value should be applied to all project. Were as I asses them from the projects position and leave other projects values alone generally. Cheers - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reply, Im near by as my user page may indicate (With projects Derbyshire, Sheffield & Yorkshire). So I resurrected WP Lincolnshire after finding the project page (tagged inactive). I was Dealing with quite a few links articles in my Quest for info relating to old Engineering firms and Steam & tractor builders. So started 'collecting' articles for watching as vandalism / spoof entries were rife on some articles.

Good see some Local interest in the articles now with a few editors 'joining' the project. As you say the importance (priority) parameter is related to the individual projects perception of the articles direct relevance in the local context and not the subject in general terms. I placed the main towns as Top, with the others high, following the principle that only a few want to be top (~ 10) probably, based on what i learnt with WikiProject Yorkshire and the help gained from user:Keith D who is also a member here and very helpful with problems and fighting vandals etc. I really should get assessing a few of the articles again, as cleared most of Derbyshires off, but then added a load more before my break from wikipedia. Any general assessment issues would probably be best brought up at the project page to get others involved. The updated project templates have a linked comments section built in but I'ved not tried it out yet. I often made a small comment in my edit summary as people watching article can see it were as opening a talk page to look is less likely IMO. - Cheers BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi tried out the new Comments bit and I think i will just use it on big articles with a full talk page, as very few will see the comments, the older version was visible IIRC on the page unless multiple Project boxes.

I'm going to just add a heading and short comment below the project box on minor articles I think need a comment about the assessment, so others can see why / my reasoning for the grade, or issues with the article.

I was thinking of going through the Starts to see what can go to C, then do the stubs before adding the new articles, but before I started that I had Internet access issues. I'm supposedly only doing part time wikipedia editing, but its rapidly escalating. (may perhaps try and do a few each day to reduce number that need checking) before new ones are added.

Back to my other (Tractor Wiki) project for abit, after a ten minute look for info turned into a 2 couple of hours of WP Editing. - Cheers BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome... :-) - Mu (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A quick thank you for the Barnstar you awarded to me for my work on WP Lincolnshire.

- Cheers - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I stumbled onto your "notability" tag for this article. I've added a couple of additional references to indicate her notability. Did you want explicit references to distinctions such as her designation as a Chancellor of the Academy of American Poets? I would think that distinction alone would satisfy the Wikipedia notability criterion, although of course it originates with her reputation as a poet. Otherwise I agree with you that the article needs more work; it's full of personal details and short on discussion of her poetry, which is the main source of her notability and for her inclusion. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your quick response on my talk-page and on the article; I agree with your views. Easchiff (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've undone your edit here as I suspect you may be getting confused between Lincolnshire and Humberside.—GrahamSmith (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kindly see my further comments at Gillian Merron's talk page.—GrahamSmith (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice Roman addition to Navenby - thanks!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 10:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I would have answered on your Talk Page, but the dog pounced on me and nearly licked me to death.   --BSTemple (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

...in two minutes. Maybe we should just avoid each other. I'll stay over there, and you can stay over there. :P Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, it's a deal. :oP --BSTemple (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

BLPs and politics are two things that I normally try to avoid in Wikipedia. However, back in 2005 I helped with the efforts to cover the general election, and in the process created the Angela Christine Smith, which is therefore on my watchlist. Anyway, my recent edits to the article were an attempt to avoid the cycle described at Wikipedia:COI#How_not_to_handle_COI. Further edits by the editor User:Mpsheff today suggest that I did not achieve my goal.

Politicians, or anyone else, are not barred from editing their own articles, just strongly discouraged. The editor User:Tomfromlincoln at least appears to be trying to be constructive--in the Angela Smith case, I wouldn't mind if the editor with an apparent conflict of interest was adding well sourced content showing the good things that this MP has done. I have suggested to User:Mpsheff that he/she engage in a discussion regarding the content that they would clearly like to see gone.

I don't know about a Wiki task force to monitor politicians pages, but perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom should be made aware of the problem (if they are nor aware of it already). —Jeremy (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

In this edit to Pilgrims, you commented that "They are known as the Pilgrim Fathers". I take it you're from England. I'm curious — in modern England, is this group called the Pilgrim Fathers more often then they're called The Pilgrims? (Here in the U.S., you never hear Pilgrim Fathers anymore, just Pilgrims.) --Jw 193 (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I’d be only too glad to help, all my edits I can (more or less) explain. Yes I am from England and you are from New England? I have quite a few books (mostly history and most of these connected to the Second World War and the RAF), however I have found several references to Pilgrim Fathers. Pilgrim Fathers is used, it seems, to distinguish the pilgrims on the Mayflower) from other pilgrims, so it is important, especially for being in the Wikipedia. A snippet from the The Children's Encyclopedia, page 1206 is:

" …The granite boulder on which the feet of these immortal Pilgrim Fathers first trod when they reached the American shore is still to be seen carefully railed round in front of the Pilgrim Hall in the town of Plymouth in the New World…"

When you say "Pilgrim Fathers" there is no doubt as to whom you mean, those that sailed to America in 1620 aboard the Mayflower and this is also confirmed in the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) page 1715. Interestingly another of the books states, “We call them the Pilgrim Fathers, but more than a third of the party consisted of children.”

I will put some of these as references to help the article. Does this help?--BSTemple (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. No need for additional references. There's no question that Pilgrim Fathers is a perfectly good historical term. Matthews discusses the history of both Pilgrims and Pilgrim Fathers in his 1915 article (already linked in the Reference section of the article). It seems that Forefathers, Pilgrim Fathers, and Pilgrims were once used interchangeably.

Regarding the distinction of Pilgrim Fathers vs. other pilgrims, the modern US has a similar distinction between Pilgrims and pilgrims. Here, a pilgrim (lowercase) would usually mean any person on a religious pilgrimage. But the Pilgrims (capitalized, plural) has come to mean the Mayflower passengers of 1620 (confirmed by two American dictionaries).

For whatever reason, Pilgrim Fathers and Forefathers are no longer used on my side of the Atlantic — but it sounds like Pilgrim Fathers is still in use in the UK.

The Pilgrims article was clearer that Pilgrim Fathers is the current UK term, up until this March 2 edit, which portrayed it as a current American term (which it isn't). I suspected at the time that this edit was just vandalism, but until I consulted somebody from the UK, I couldn't be sure.

I've created a version of the article that reverses the March 2 vandalism and clarifies in the lead sentence that Pilgrims is the US term and that Pilgrim Fathers is the UK term. I've put it in my sandbox; here are the differences from the current version. See what you think. Would this version address any concerns you have? I think we can keep it simple.

In reply to your question, I actually live in the American midwest (a misnomer), but much of my ancestry lies in New England, and I've take a special interest in its colonial history.

Regards, --Jw 193 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your edits look good, and are fine by me. The reason I like to put references is, one, the obvious to verify information is correct, but two, to act as a guide for other editors if an article is edited wrongly or Vandalised, which you have just shown has been the case with the March 2 edit. Some clown will come along and twist things around and it stays there until editors like you and I get around to looking at it. Pilgrims is, however, on my Watch List (along with hundreds of others), it’s just time to get around to them all. If I can help with any of your colonial history articles etc, let me know. --BSTemple (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I notice you have been changing MOD to MoD. I have found in the past that the general consensus is MOD, although I argued MoD and MOD were interchangable. The argument was lost however when it was pointed out to me that the MoD/MOD refer to them self as MOD on their web sites (for example here: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInAfghanistanBritishFatalities.htm the text of which may seem familiar to you. Good luck with it though! Trevor Marron (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes I see what you mean. We old guard know it as MoD (correctly I might add) as the "o" = "of" which is small, it is not Ministry Of Defence, but Ministry of Defence. The MoD websites will be now done by young "this is how we do it now" groups. Just look at the standard of education in the country as a guide. If you look in the books, especially military history, they show it as MoD, at least the ones I have. A MOD clashes with a ROCKER. ;-) --BSTemple (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid you misread the consensus, hence my revert of your revert. Though consensus was against a redirect, there was no such consensus against mentioning Abraham Lincoln in the header. Prior to putting him back in the header where he belongs, Lincoln was way down at the bottom of the page. This is not the way to treat a member of the Core Biographies or a member of the 1,000 articles every Wikipedia should have (lists of ~200 people with broadbased consensus as to their importance) Thank you, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fine, but if another editor in this following week does not remove it, then I shall also add the City of Lincoln, where the name came from. No City of Lincoln, then Abraham Lincoln could not have existed (not by name anyway).--BSTemple (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've just looked, I think you read the wrong topic on the Talk Page. It's the last one about the name Lincoln.--BSTemple (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

How? Unless I'm missing something, there's not any mention of Abraham Lincoln in that section? I'm fine with Lincoln, England being the first thing below the header, ahead of the Lincoln, Canada stuff...on the condition that Abraham Lincoln is mentioned in the header. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, my aim would be to mention the City of Lincoln along with the President in the header. Here people only refer to the city as "Lincoln", and all words Lincoln come from this city. I’m happy to have the president there, but only if the city is as well. That is why I asked for views on the talk page.--BSTemple (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I edited the Barbara Dickson bio to change her birthdate to 1947 from 1948, and BSTemple changed it back claiming vandalism. I have now changed it again, and referenced her official website as it lists her birthdate as 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisish (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The BBC here has her date of birth as 1948. As Barbara Dickson has been vandalised on numerous accounts, especially her date of birth, which is often put at 1945, the reference was the guide. If you had put a clear reference and explained your edit, I would not have reverted it.--BSTemple (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I tweaked your lead in Lincoln because it was too long, too Anglocentric and didn't have enough commas. Please read Talk:Lincoln#Happy Medium before making any further edits to Lincoln, and remember that while you favor a Lincolnshire-centric approach to the page, several other editors think it's perfectly fine to have Lincoln redirect to Abraham Lincoln. Also note that being first doesn't necessarily mean most important, and most editors agree that Abe is more important. A final note...very few famous people have the entymologies of their names in their disam leads. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for informing me, I have placed a comment on the page and see that since I have been away there has been quite a lot of activity. I will leave it as it is, but please try to remember that there are other people around the world with other views and I was trying to make clear the origin of this word, plus the fact that here in the UK, Lincoln means only the City of Lincoln. Also look at the cities heritage and the fine Lincoln Cathedral.--BSTemple (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this page; thank you also for changing its class. I'm keen to improve the article further and so would appreciate any specific feedback you might be willing to give me, on where you think the grammar is deficient and what other things (your "etc") would benefit from being reworked. Thanks again for your help on this DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I saw that you are a member of the books wikiproject, and wondered if you might assess Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America? I can't, as I've had a hand in editing it. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I've put the class to B, though it was a case of C+ or B-. The B was put due to the work done and references, but a little extra work is needed, such as Overview needing references. It's nice to see that several editors have been involved, that's always a good sign in my opinion as it allows fresh views.--BSTemple (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Many thanks. Will take a look at doing that this week. Very much appreciate your supplying a rating, and the feedback.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quick question. As far as a source for the overview, are either of the two appropriate: 1) the book itself; and 2) the Amazon summary (or a similar one)? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

In actual fact neither, a good source is one from an independent review. As the book seems to have been in the press, often in controversial situations, I would have thought it would be easy to find third party reviews. You might think that Amazon is an independent review, but it isn’t really as it’s selling the book and in most cases only pulls off the publisher’s publicity. Reviews do not have to be only on the web, but can be in newspapers or magazines (reputable ones I might add), just always give the reference.--BSTemple (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a Disambiguation page called Lincoln which has a Link to our Lincoln page. When you tagged the article, you rated it as Disambig and High importance. An editor has been accussing you and our WP of trying to 'slant' links to the Licoln page by rating it as High. I need you to clarify your reasoning for doing this. I am going to contact Keith D and other proinent members, please try to reply ASAP. The link is here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposed change to tagging Disambiguation pages for projects. 95jb14 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC).Reply

Thanks BSTemple, I just couldn't believe he was accussing us of this. 95jb14 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC).Reply

Purplebackpack89 it seems is being very disruptive and trying to control the page to a total American view, you will notice above that he already knew my views, but just cannot let things rest. This is going against the nature and goodwill of the Wikipedia. I have always felt the Wikipedia should be global reflecting all cultures where appropriate. Lincolnshire has a heritage to be proud of and one much, much older than the USA, and it’s up to us to ensure it is rightfully given its place in the scope of things. As long as we are not biased and base our arguments on sound knowledge and facts we should hold our own in these debates. I just feel though that Purplebackpack89 is wasting other editors time which could be used on other projects making the Wikipedia better.--BSTemple (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Our Lincoln"? Wikipedia is not based on heritage and age, but on hits and clue. I don't support Lincoln redirecting to Abraham Lincoln because he's American, I support him because he gets way more hits than "your Lincoln" Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and I suggest you read things properly, not twist them around as you seem to constantly do. For example you stress “Our Lincoln”, which I can only assume you are referring to 95jb14 who stated our Lincoln because the City of Lincoln in Lincolnshire is our City. A Lincoln in America is not. Your aggressive nature and I feel disruptiveness is making me begin to wonder if you are in fact a Troll. Please stop. It is much better to work with editors and important to respect other peoples views. If other people don’t agree with you, try to accept it and move on. --BSTemple (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking of "offensive" in a narrower military sense. Two days worth of attacks, IMO, don't make for a bomber offensive. Berlin was under attack for weeks; that is an offensive. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the Offensive (military) article , it shows that a bomber offensive is sometimes also known as a strategic bombing offensive, and in the strategic bombing article here, you will see (sixth paragraph down) that the Bombing of Dresden in World War II is given. It is also mentioned in the Strategic bombing during World War II article. This brings us back to strategic bombing offensive and the correct use of Offensive (military). That is why it should be in the article. Should we take this to the Talk Page and let other editors have a say? --BSTemple (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you've no objection, I'll copy all this conversation there & answer. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No I have no objection, anything where we can all work together to make a better article I’m in favour of. I don’t like edit wars and prefer on a consensus. --BSTemple (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

...easily! I'm sat here looking at Volume 1 of Doug Nye's BRM opus. There is an awful lot in there about RM's early life, and throughout the series there are asides about RM. I'm just putting some finishing touches to a piece on another guy at the moment. But when that's done I could certainly switch focus to Mays. Feel free to make a start without me though... Pyrope 03:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed - or rather commented out - The stub flags on the grounds that now the museum staff have supplied the details of the building there is nothing much more to say. I've got no references to add.--Brunnian (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but stubs are there to alert other editors to articles that need working on with such as references etc being added. I've already worked on it to try and put it to Start class without re-adding the stubs.--BSTemple (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I’ll do my best. --BSTemple (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi BSTemple

I reverted your addition of the {{recent death}} template to the above-captioned article. Per the template's instructions, it is only applicable for articles that are being extremely heavily edited. The article in question has only been edited 37 times be 25 editors over more than a day, hence it doesn't require its inclusion.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 00:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks, I slipped it in as the story was just starting to filter onto sites like yahoo and thought there might be a sudden interest. But you are absolutely right, I’ve just checked the article and the last two edits were mine and your reverting it! BSTemple (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, a while ago you put a reference to a primary school on the Sedgebrook page. Your reference (Allington / Sedgebrook School History) claims the school was closed in 1981 (well it implies it at least) but the site I've been using for info (Sedgebrook village website) says 1984. What do I do? Sorry to bother you with trivia (I'm very new to this) DancingGerbil (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I see your point, and no you are not bothering me. It shows as if there are two schools, one merged and the Grammer School closed? I will add some more info to it. --BSTemple (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated DancingGerbil (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. We're having a content dispute at the article above - the list of empires has a large 216 entries, and currently the article sees fit to repeat this list 6 times! Clearly a waste of storage and bandwidth. A better solution (saving at least 30% and making it much easier to read and use) would be a table with a column for each attribute, sortable, as used in many other articles (see the discussion). However, a silent editor keeps reverting attempts to clean up the article, without explanation. Please see the discussion (currently nobody disagrees). Your comments would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.207 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The sad case is that this article has become a mess with the facts becoming suspect and needing clear verification from reliable sources. Credible references have to be added and editors with a clear knowledge or access to this knowledge need to work on it. That said, your table solution is a good one for the format and making the article easier to read. --BSTemple (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your suggestion to clean up the Alexander Hewat page, which I have attempted to do with external links in text statements removed and references given in true Wikipedia style. Hoping that this is sufficient, I have removed the Cleanup tag.

I must say that, as a professional scientist accustomed to article referencing, I found the Wikipedia method of citation rather cumbersome for articles with small numbers of references. Including the full reference hidden in the body of the text and then automatically constructing a list using "references" or "Reflist" tags renders the editing text difficult to read, and means that repeated reference to the same source requires repeating the full source or else using rather quaint "loc. cit." or "op. cit." abbreviations.

BTW, there appears to be a new stub article on this same person listed as Alexander Hewatt.

Thanks again for your help, Hewat (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've worked on the article to improve it and merged the text from Alexander Hewatt, but you will still have to do some editing. Please try to keep all good references because they are important to substantiate the text. --BSTemple (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. You have done a great job ! Yes, there is still a little editing required to achieve consistency of style and content: I will come back to it in a few days, after allowing others to contribute as necessary. Kind regards, Alan Hewat (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

i had that exact phrase (about Birkenhead's history) in my head, but it somehow failed to navigate from my head to my keyboard. thanks. much clearer.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome!  , you were correct, in my mind, in what you were trying to do. --BSTemple (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article Chang Hsüeh-ch'eng has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Merge into Zhang Xuecheng suggested for over a year. It's the same guy, different romanization, so I merged the contents of the two articles at Zhang Xuecheng.

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. ch (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hiya BSTemple, I went to the Wikiengland project to see if there was anything related to English people, I see from the project page you and HistoryDMZ listed people as in your interest. I've been involved in some edits over Henry Cavil's lede (English to British and back again etc) and I wondered if you could take a look as a third eye, I don't know if I've got too close to it.  :)Halbared (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi BSTemple! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi BSTemple! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply