User talk:Ratarsed

Hi there, nothing important to say here just a quick hello. I notice you've been doing a lot of work on Ipswich related articles. I find it facinating that there's an active user from this town along with myself. I guess from your username that you like the 'odd tipple', what are your favorite pubs in Ipswich? Celardore 19:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The username is a combination of references (details on my usre page) but as I did my "coming of age" out of the county, I have found a good pub to call my local -- My closest is The Flying Horse, but I've never been in. Been to The Milestone a few times, friends prefer The Vodka Bar. Ratarsed 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never been to the Flying Horse myself, passed it a few times though. I quite like the Milestone, sometimes they have some real talented people playing, plus some good ales. Been to the Vodka bar a few times, just because like you said - friends like it. Personally, I don't see why. In fact I'd go as far to say I hate that bar, stupid drinks, stupid prices.

I read your updated userpage after I posted that comment. I used to have a Roland Rat teddy when I was young (he was my favorite)... Ahh memories. I guess you're within 10 years of my own age, but lets not go there here. Nice to meet you anyways. Keep up the good work! Celardore 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Thanks for helping out with Ancient House. I wondered if I could suggest a couple of photos, which seems to be quite a hobby of yours - if you're in Christchurch Park anytime soon... A photo of the mansion and the Ipswich Martyrs memorial? I would do it myself, but the lens popped out of my own camera and it's gonna be a tough couple of months financially! Thanks! Celardore^Talk 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)?[reply]

Well, there's one of the Mansion -- which is the Martyrs memorial? If I haven't got it on file, I can always make the effort to get a new one (I do have my own photo of Balance if needs be, by the way). I may yet reshoot the Mansion, as that photo was a particularly dreary day. -- Ratarsed 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The martyr memorial, let me try and explain this: If approaching the mansion from the front, carry on the 'spine' path of the park. There are some public toilets on the right about 50yds from the mansion, if you can see them you can see the memorial. It's fenced in and made of stone. Sorry, that's all from memory! You'll find it I'm sure. And since we're having such nice weather you probably could get a better picture of the mansion. I didn't notice one on WP though, I probably missed it. And that Balance photo is nice. Cheers. Celardore^Talk 21:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the memorial here, or further North by the other set of public toilets, here? (prbably best to compare those grid refs with something like the Windows Live Local mapping or the OS 1:25,000, as they're less than 500m from each other :)

As an aside, bright sunshine is very difficult to take a good picture in -- I'm sure I had a better photo already though, but with close to 8,000 to sort through, it's not a quick job...

Sorry, I've not had so much time for WP the past few days. Map references confuse me a little bit. I did doubt my directions; so I went to the park on Friday night to check what I said. If you're walking from the front of the mansion, just follow the spine and you can't miss it. I can't really say more than that. I wish I had a working digital camera still!

I think I found it on the aerial photography (and references elsewhere) just need the time to get into the park and get the shot. Ratarsed 20:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your own time friend, don't put yourself out for it. I just think it would be good to have a picture of the memorial monument in the Ipswich Martyrs article and you're likely the most willing and able person to do it! Celardore^Talk 20:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which -- I was looking remarkably suspicious around Ravenswood and the Airport Terminal Building yesterday morning (oh, and Felaw Maltings, but that's not relevent yet) Ratarsed 20:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you posted your opposition to the category moves and suggested that we categorize by navy instead of by country. I'd like to invite you to join in the discussion at WP:SHIPS; categorizing by navy has real disadvantages and after a month of discussion we decided that it would be better to categorize by country. It's very difficult to spend a month working on and deciding on a proposal and having it voted down at a glance. If you feel, after checking out the advantages and disadvantages of both, that it would still be better to categorize by navy, we'd appreciate your input in coming up with a new categorization scheme.

Incidentally, "Royal Navy" is the correct official name for the navy, and "British Navy" is incorrect. "Navy of the United Kingdom" is not the navy's name but it is a correct term; the Royal Navy is the navy of the United Kingdom. TomTheHand 20:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was already there drafting a response :)

Thank you! It feels great to get more input on the issue; sometimes the sound of all the crickets chirping over on WP:SHIPS makes it hard for me to think. TomTheHand 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to your comment. -- Roleplayer 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I will make a mental note to try and help you write the article you propose about the UK census. I study Environmental Sciences at the university and am about to undertake a dissertation on something health geography related. I'm verging on a qualitative study of access, need and utilisation of health services, the use of weighted capitation resource allocation formulas and the effectiveness of indicies of deprivation that are based on these forumas in assessing need and access to healthcare etc. If I do a more quantitative dissertation I may even get David Martin to supervise it.

In which case any help you could give in regards to GIS etc is very much appreciated and I will try to pass on the knowledge I gain from David's supervision to this site.

At the moment I'm just trying to get an idea of how to go about qualitative research, and am inclined toward some sort of semi-structured interview. Perversely I'm quite happy to see there are few articles in this area on wikipedia, it will be nice to be able to contribute to an area that hasn;t been covered much, time permitting with these work commitments.

regards Supposed 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good; I've got some personal commitments (my wedding) over the next couple of weeks that mean I'll be unlikely to get the graphics together that I was going to do. I hope to be able to make a start after that. --Ratarsed 07:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am not quite sure what made you think metric units were not acceptable, but I see that you have now decided that they are. Anyway, I hope that whatever it is you learned, that it will help improve Wikipedia. Hopefully we can have an encyclopedia with universal units of measurement.

Keep up the good work. Regards bobblewik 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my bad -- my mind indadvertyantly added a "not" in the "provide conversions" statement (to be be consistant with currencies, where it has more reason). I still like hectares tho'... -- Ratarsed 17:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Minds can sometimes flip like that. I use square kilometres because they are easier than hectares. bobblewik 18:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that you changed hectares to square kilometres ouright (rather than adding the conversion) -- Hectares (and derivitives, such as dwellings per hectare for housing densities) are used in planning policy and other local authority documentation in the UK. As far as I'm aware, hectares are unambiguous (as apposed to square miles), and as such, I see no reason to not use them? -- Ratarsed 07:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use both in Teesport because hectares add no value to square kilometres. Anybody that understands 200 hectares also understands 2 square kilometres.

You are correct to say that domain specialists use hectares. But Wikipedia is not an in-house publication for domain specialists. It is an encyclopedia and that, by definition, means it should be accessible to non-specialists.

Ordinary people encounter kilometres often but hectares much less often. Some can go through their entire lives without encountering a value in hectares, but I would be surprised if anyone managed to avoid kilometres (even people in the US come across it particularly if they serve in the military). If you look maps in metric countries (e.g. Ordnance Survey), you even have square kilometres marked out but you don't have hectares marked. Two square kilometres is two grid squares or a distance of two kilometres by one kilometre. I would be surprised if many ordinary people found '200 hectares' easier.

• Try an experiment:

Area-to-value test: Ask somebody to look at an area of land from on top of a hill and tell you how many hectares it is. Try the same with square kilometres.

Value-to-area test: Give somebody a value in hectares and ask somebody to point out an area of land of that size from on top of a hill. Try the same with square kilometres.

Regards bobblewik 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is where I'd disagree -- the Ordanance Survey does mark hectares on it's large scale products (1:2500, 1:1250). A straw poll of an office in a UK shipping company shows that people here understand (in preference order) square miles, acres, and hectares. When asked specifically if they could estimate the size of the plot of land that the industrial estate that the offices sit on, answers were given in acres and hectares. Nobody had a fantest clue on square kilometres (and people did the incorrect conversion of 1.6 square kilometres to the square mile).

My preference would be to include the value in hectares if it is within a suitable order of magnitude, with an idea of "suitable" as "less than a thousand" -- Ratarsed 12:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I added a photo of the Norfolk Broads and an external link to many more pictures of the Norfolk Broads, including an online guided tour. You claim this is spam - why? TourNorfolk is a non-proft making website intended to promote tourism to a county that depends on it and adds value to Wiki readers looking for information on Norfolk.

Can you explain this as I checked with another reviewer that I was following wiki guidelines BEFORE I applied the edits - sophos - and they told me its was ok providing i supplied content and not just a link. If you are worried about copyright of the photo's I supplied, then fear not as I took all of them myself.

TourNorfolk

Per WP:EL, I interpreted that link as falling foul of the following recommendation as to what to avoid linking to:

• "Links mainly intended to promote a website."
• "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." -- over 20 on destination page
• "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." and/or "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." -- Any official website would at least mention that The Broads are in Suffolk, too.

Per WP:CON, there is the comment that states, "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors", which is what you appear to have done, see also Conflict of interest#Self-promotion

Looking at all your past edits, they seem to consist only of linking to your own website.

At the end of the day, these are my opinions, so by all means discuss them. -- Ratarsed 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated the article Raspberry Software for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raspberry Software. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Raspberry Software during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed some broken links from the MSC Napoli article. I wanted to let you know that I have fixed the links and restored them. --Eastmain 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that a category that you created (Category:Coal power stations in England) is being discussed at Categories for Discussion. ~ BigrTex 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. For this article, watchlisting it and reverting any sporadic vandalism suffices. Most vandalism is reverted immediately by recent changes patrollers so keeping an eye for any vandalism that managed to go unnoticed is enough at the moment. Regards, Húsönd 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this in for me, Ratarsed. I'll keep an eye on it. Best wishes Ahmedbadr3 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for reverting your deletion of category Grade II listed buildings from Chetham's Library which I have now put back as you left it. A moment of blindness on my part. Congratulations on your brave start to categorising listed buildings by county. Oosoom ^Talk to me 14:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the article Tregarden for clean up can you explain what needs doing? Thanks Teapotgeorge 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, in short, it doesn't adhere to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as it is currently written, specifically Section 3 -- Ratarsed 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you quite quickly removed the photo needed tag from this article after I added a picture. I'm not an expert at wiki, could you perhaps help tidy up what I've done? I have added two images to the article, as well as the names of the people on it. If you could tidy it up to look better that would be awesome. The pics could be better, but for a camera phone I think they do the job quite well.

I know you have that banner that says you'll reply here only, but if you could drop me a little talk page thing to let me know you've read what I said that would be a really nice favour. Thanks Jamdonut 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your new infobox. It does seem to have a slight problem with displaying the lat/long coordinates, which are sqished right up against the underline that Wikipedia draws beneath the article title. This results in the topmost pixels of the coordinates being cut off, making them quite difficult to read. Perhaps you could do something to resolve this problem?

The same effect happens in both Firefox and Internet Explorer.
--NSH001 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the problem is (that infobox just embeds {{tl:coor titled d}}) -- the problem also appears to be affecting {{tl:infobox UK place}} -- If I can work the cause out then I'll try and fix it in both... -- Ratarsed 16:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it doesn't like being embedded in tables, fixed it now, though. -- Ratarsed 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tags you added to merge Big-game hunter into Hunting have long been removed, so I think there is consensus to leave them be as separate articles. I reorganized and enlarged the internal links for Big-game hunter. Note that I've also created an article on Hunting license, and am still working on that. I will take the liberty of removing these articles from the July 2006 list of proposed mergers from WP:MERGE. Nice effort, though. Bearian 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. The old link was at: Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#July_2006, under WP:PM. Bearian 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you changed a common term - overlap - to a neologism - duplex. The two terms mean the same thing - that both routes use the same stretch of road - but the latter is a nonstandard term, and should net be used. --NE2 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree, although perhaps I meant multiplexes[1] [2] [3] [4]:

Overlap: 1 extend over so as to cover partly. 2 partly coincide. [4]

Multiplex: 1 consisting of many elements in a complex relationship. 2 (of a cinema) having several separate screens within one building. 3 involving simultaneous transmission of several messages along a single channel of communication. [5]

In either way, I'd say it's at best misleading to suggest a minor route "overlaps" a more major route, either physically or metaphorically; especially as the minor route effectively disappears for the duration of the multiplex. I'm not aware of a suitable Wikiproject to get a more expert opinion -- Even the article's Talk Page refers to roads multiplexing... -- Ratarsed 12:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed your claim (I assume they were yours anyway) in the article for the River Ore and the River Alde about the different banks of the river having different names. Do you have a reference you could site for this detail? I say this because the referenced 'Ore and Alde association' describes it differently with the name changing at Orford. to quote: "The Alde flows from the shifting sand and shingle banks of the mouth (from where, until it passes the historic town of Orford, it is called the River Ore)". Also, do you have any thoughts on the River Butley. I am putting some information into wikipedia about the Butley Ferry and really need a reference for the River Butley. Should I create a separate article for the Butley River?PeterIto (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ratarsed

I see you have reversed the name River Gaywood to the Gaywood river If you go to [6] and then check page chapter 4.5.5. you will see that the environment agency call it the River Gaywood and not the way you have redirected the title. I have noted that the OS map Explorer 23 (Norfolk Coast West)does indeed have the title as you have suggested. I do not have a diffinitive correct name as both Govenment agencys seem to be at odds. I know that locally the river is just known as the "Gay". Stavros1 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, I've never known it as "(The) River Gaywood", always as "Gaywood River" or simply "The Gay". I'd suggest that the Ordnance Survey is a more reliable source as they'd actually have to have surveyed it, and asked the locals what it was called (to form the initial name in their records); I'd even go far as to suggest that someone thought it was a mistake whilst proof-reading a report for the environment agency - after all, King's Lynn lost its apostrophe as well... -- Ratarsed (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated "Earl Merkel" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ratarsed Your Coordinates need correct for the power station as at the moment they direct you to a field near SpaldingStavros1 (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad -- got my East/West mixed up... -- Ratarsed (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears we have a bit of a conflict with the Canon Rebel XSi camera. We have a Canon UK press release that says March 2008:

http://www.canon.co.uk/press_centre/press_releases/cameras_accessories/eos450d_press_release.asp

And a Canon USA press release that says April 2008:

http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20080123_xsi.html

So which do we go with? I don't believe there really is any precedence or default answer for this. Tejastheory (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd opt to go for "both" as it wouldn't be the first product to be released in different territories at different times -- when listing for "first release" times, go for the earliest (as with any new product actual availability tends to lag anyway). -- Ratarsed (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, earliest release date makes sense to me. Tejastheory (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Miltonparksmall.gif. 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Grade II listed buildings in Esat Sussex, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Grade II listed buildings in Esat Sussex has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Grade II listed buildings in Esat Sussex, 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) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, though it is in the postal address, you may have to change quite a few references if you want to go down this route 86.130.122.126 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in any of the Parishes that make up Abingdon, and is closer to Didcot. Post towns are pretty meaningless in rural environs, because you get silly things like parts of one county being described as in another, like Goring or Woodcote which are "in" Reading (as apposed being villages both about 5 miles from Reading in Oxfordshire). -- Ratarsed (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the branch you added to the ECML template: looking at google images, the NVR stops short of a connection with the Ely to Peterborough line, and has no connection to the ECML, which follows a contour 20' or so higher than the NVR. I've used a siding image instead to indicate proximity but no connection. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual connection is at TL191967 -- Ratarsed (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ransomes Industrial Estate 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 (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. —BradV 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies but if you read this link you will see my confusion [7] Regards Paste (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem -- I'm tempted to trust Edubase (and the school) in this instance, as Edubase at least have a "record updated" date (unlike the council) -- that doesn't mean it's right though, so should there be any other sources (such as a story in a local paper to celebrate a new head), they would be most useful. -- Ratarsed (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cburnett (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I notice that you've added infoboxes to schools within the West Midlands county. Could you use the form West Midlands please, as just plain West Midlands leads to a disambiguation page for the county/region/conurbation and so on. Thanks! Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, I've written a helper application to help me apply infoboxes for UK schools (based on information from Edubase.gov.uk) -- I'll tweak it to include that disambiguation... -- Ratarsed (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reverted my edit to the Canon DSLR cameras template. I find it confusing to have two sections of cameras labled Professional, and DPreview's reviews hardly count as source; whatever their subjective statement be, it's not a source to classify cameras. A Canon reference, however, would be valid. I was unable to find a Canon reference to any of their cameras as "professional" or "prosumer", but here they refer to the 5D as targeted toward "professionals and serious amatures alike" — that's basically the definition of prosumer. So, I'd like to remove the links and change the 5D's category to prosumer full frame. Please tell me if you find this satisfactory. Thegreenj 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed on the talk page for the template to a certain extent. The dpreview articles are rehashing the Canon press releases to a great extent, but you are right that a Canon press release would be preferable. Verging on WP:OR, but I do know of a lot of professional photographers using the 5D as a professional camera in their day to day work. In reality Canon have several professional cameras for different markets; the 1D for sports, the 1Ds for studio, with the 5D regarded as ideal for Wedding work. Probably best take your concerns to the discussion on the template talk page though, so that a consensus can be agreed. -- Ratarsed (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay a professional can use a disposable camera at a wedding if he'd like, but that doesn't make pros its intended audience. In any case, I've found and put in links from Canon that should be satisfactory. Thegreenj 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ratarsed - I've listed EastEngland-school-stub for deletion at WP:SFD - though templates on a county-by-county basis were supported at WP:WSS/P, there is no such county as "East of England", and certainly there shouldn't be a template for it. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some schools you've tagged with {{Yorkshire-school-stub}} are done in error. Whilst schools in Redcar and Cleveland, Middlesbrough and some parts of Stockton-on-Tees are ceremonially in North Yorkshire they are not in Yorkshire and Humber as the stub says but in fact they are in North East England. It's a minor point but still one which ought to be considered. Thanks! Computerjoe's talk 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the regions straddling the counties in this manner; You might want to comment on the debate to make the stub categories more fine grained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/April#UK schools (again) -- Ratarsed (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - just thought I'd let you know that I've moved your new {{TyneAndWear-school-stub}} to {{TyneandWear-school-stub}} - no big deal, but other T&W stubs (like the geo-stub) use a small "a" in "and" :) Grutness...wha? 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same with {{IsleofWight-school-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're doing some great work adding co-ordinates to school infoboxes. However, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you're removing all the flags, adding the unnecessary title "Mr", and removing the tidy forms of the school website URLs. I cannot see any reason for making these changes. Could you please discuss before making any further changes. I've started restoring some of the flags and URLs but there seem to be quite a few which will need restoring. Dahliarose (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may or not have noticed that I'm actually pasting in a completely new copy of the infobox (based on the blank copy at {{Infobox UK school}}) and add the information from Edubase -- I've got a set of macros set up to help in this, but it seems it's not recognising the multitude of options for how people specify the country (which is ironic as the template only really applies to England, given things like Ofsted number, etc.) By all means add the flags back in if you wish, but it's unfortunate that you didn't point it out sooner, as I've already done over 1,000 schools... -- Ratarsed (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have been best if you'd notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools before making such mass changes. I only watch a few school articles and the edit summary you gave did not make it clear that all these changes were happening. I only noticed it was happening quite by chance. I was under the impression that all the schools I'm watching (mostly Gloucestershire) were already using the standard UK template. If you are going to use the macro I think you need to change it so that the "Mr" is omitted, the flags are sorted and also so that the neater abbreviated version of the website URL is retained and not deleted. The UK template was set up specifically so that the shortened version of the URL could be used if preferred though some people simply use the words "Official website". The template is also used by Welsh and Scottish schools, but I don't think all of them have yet been changed over to the new template. If there's anything that is not covered then I suggest you discuss the matter on the template talk page. Dahliarose (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming you have addressed D-Rose's point then well done on the Derbyshire infoboxes Victuallers (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Dahliarose (talk · contribs), I noticed that most instances where missing the 'specialist_pl' parameter; Mind you, a lot were missing the whole infobox. Quite a few instances also list the head's qualifications (BSc etc.), I'd also say the title is important, especially with female heads, or those that are now Dr (etc.), or even those with ambiguous names, or only initials. Combining this with the fact that most students will refer to the head as Mr. Bryan (etc) in the third person, I think it's worth including -- after all, Edubase, Ofsted, etc. all deem it important enough... Regarding notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, in the past, I've found that comments and suggestions tend to go unanswered, so in true Wikipedia fashion I was bold and went ahead by adding them, and moving to a countrywide consistent formatting (and yes, I've even done some of Wales, too), as well as stub sorting all of the {{UK-school-stub}}

And whilst I'm here, thanks Victuallers (talk · contribs) -- good to hear that some of my efforts aren't in vain -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plural parameter for the specialist schools was added after a lot of the infobox templates had already been added. I hadn't appreciated the extent of what you'd done and this macro could potentially be very useful if the flag problem and the URL problem could be sorted. The inclusion of the title is perhaps open to debate. In my view it is not normal practice to include honorifics in encyclopaedic articles. I don't see why it should be necessary to know the marital status of the female head, and the use of the title Ms. is very clumsy. I would prefer to see the title excluded. I've alerted WPSchools to what you are doing and no doubt people will comment if they are interested. It is quite an active project and people usually do respond Dahliarose (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally dont like having the persons title in the infobox. It just doesnt look good. As for mentioning their degrees etc, i dont like that either; Does anyone really care that the headmaster of School A in Country B has a Bachelor of Education? No. So why add it? Simple. Five Years 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it being more useful if the person has a more unusual title or suffix, such as being a sir, or having an OBE -- Ratarsed (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed the "Location" in the infobox to read "Chepstow, Monmouthshire..". The postal address is in fact Sedbury, Chepstow, Monmouthshire. However, the location - which is what the infobox shows - is Sedbury, Gloucestershire - that is, across the Wye from Chepstow, in Gloucestershire, England, not Monmouthshire, Wales. This is explained in the article. So, I reverted your change.Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fearnhill School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fearnhill School. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TerriersFan (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ratarsed - what's with all the school-stub templates? I don't recall any of them being proposed, though they should have been... They're all listed at WP:WSS/D. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were proposed, suggested as speedy; which was supported over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/May#European school stubs by nation (have also replied at WP:WSS/D for everyone else's benefit) -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a quick note to say that I had to correct your coordinates for St Thomas' Hospital. For the locality, they were quite a way off. Please check your coordinates before adding them to articles in the future! Thanks =) smiler (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, I was just using the co-ordinates from an existing link to Google maps; I'll try to remember to check them in future... -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of moving it to "Aquatics" so that diving and synchro swimming can be included. Hammersfan 17/07/08, 10.56 BST

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Vicki Barr (books), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.series-books.com/vickibarr/vickibarr.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you correct the documentation to include all the fields available for this infobox? The coding is pretty hard to read. --Geniac (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching that and its pretty spectacular what those girls can do. I really thought both of them deserved the gold, in some sports they award a tie like swimming and maybe they should add a final round shootout sort of to settle the final result. I dont know much about that sport and i only really notice it during the olympics, just like a whole lot of other sports. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 12:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holyhead High School, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware it is documented somewhere, although I recall I saw it long time ago at Olympics WikiProject. But it is not supposed to be written, like the unwritten British constitution. In this case we use the precedential law used by the editors for a long time. Changing it would need a long and wide discussion at several involved WikiProjects, as it affects tens of thousands articles which now use this convention. - Darwinek (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have notified several users then, who are more familiar with these rules, to clear it up for you. I just used my common sense and the practice which is in use. I am happy you have now figured it out. :) - Darwinek (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie ^talk 19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I disagree with one of the editors on the interpretation on Wikipedia's rules and regulations, so I would like to know that whether I can get a senior third party to judge that what information could be included in an article and what could not. Thanks Tinbin (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which article was that? I don't mind lending my interpretation, if you'd like that? -- ratarsed (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed about using Chinese sources with the editor and was agreed by the editor before using them. Please could you check the talk page first before removing my materials —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With every article, there is no single editor, in addition there is a Wikipedia policy that governs the use of non-english sources, which is even quoted on the talk page of article in question, and requires a reliable translation, as well as the original text to be provided in the footnote where no english source exists. -- ratarsed (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And actually, I didn't say he had carte blanche to use Chinese-language sources; I made the point of showing him the WP:RS policy as well. Nor did I agree that the content he added was okay, so don't blame this one on me. :) DanielEng (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, One Hour to Zero, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Hour to Zero. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Schuym1 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for inviting me into the project. (I must admit it's a late thank you). Lulubon (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had a good discussion on my talk page about the cats of Josef Čada. So please stop removing the "Czech" cats for the Czech artistic gymnasts. Thank you very much and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But no consensus or agreement was formed. I still fail to see why you insist on categorising by a nationality that did not exist at the time of some of these people's lives. My understanding on policy is that contentious content should be removed until a consensus to reinstate is reached -- ratarsed (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I do not know why you stopped the discussion? It is not a question if a nationality did exist or not at that time... I will post this question on the talk page of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I stopped the discussion. As it happens, you've managed to cross over with me asking over at WT:CATP which is probably the most neutral place to ask. -- ratarsed (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my last edit to your discussion on my talk page was a question to you. :) But no problem. Thanks for adding this question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see if they can shed any shared wisdom on the issue one way or the other; for the moment, I'll consider that to be the "live" version of the discussion ... -- ratarsed (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hmm, there is not really a big interest in our question... :) But I am still thinking about the problem, so please allow me to write you again. I think the easiest way to resolve our problem is simply to delete the head "Artistic gymnasts that have represented the Czech Republic" from the category. Please see, that other "Czech" categories like Category:Czech athletes or Category:Czech footballers do not have a head like this, so there can be added also Czech sportspeople who "only" participated for Czechoslovakia. And also other categories for gymnasts like Category:Croatian artistic gymnasts or Category:Latvian artistic gymnasts to not have a head like this. So I can add Croats who have only participated for Yugoslavia also to the cat Croatian artistic gymnasts and Latvian who have only participated for the Soviet Union also to the cat Latvian artistic gymnasts.

I think it is very important to categorize the competitors from former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia also in the correct cat according to their nationality. I think it insults these people not to list them according to their (ethnic) nationality. I think this is the same like we do for e.g. Category:Basque footballers. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Michael Rudd, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got it wrong, but the lead sentence should make it a bit clearer as to the type of power station it is, you really have to dig to tell as it is now. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other option would be to split them into separate articles for the A and B sites, but I reckon there would be people concerned that at least the B site) isn't notable enough, or similar. The article could do with more being added -- there's things I'd like to add, but need to verify first. -- ratarsed (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rating the new articles in the category Romanian artistic gymnasts. Lulubon (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Horringer Court Middle School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

The article has been tagged for 6 months for notability and merger suggestion. The school is listed in the main Bury St Edmunds article, and little else of note is recorded in this article.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tafkam (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer your thoughts on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ratarsed! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 13 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Wang Zhen (gymnast) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Dmitry Ushakov (gymnast) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Jonathan Glanfield - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on British Association of Removers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of British Association of Removers and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. andyzweb (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:OLAP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Online analytical processing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article MSC Musica has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, unreferenced article. No viable independent significant sources could be found, or were muddled within cruise advertising.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was Googling images of the Orwell Bridge, when I saw your one show up on the Daily Mail website (see here. I know I'm an admin, but I tend to steer clear of image lisencing and copyright violations of images, as I really don't understand it all. I read on the license that you grant permission for it to be used, provided it is credited. I had a look at the website, but can't see anything on there to indicate the source of that photo. Thought you ought to know. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware, as I have noticed that you are not on Wikipedia very much, I have put in a request ot the Administrator's noticeboard for someone who knows about lisencing to file a report. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bringing this to my attention - I shall look into making the required contacts shortly - ratarsed (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK power station has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox power station. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ashwell Property Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Little Professor (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in WikiProject East Anglia?

If yes, please support us here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk talk 22:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for tagging this for notability back in 2008. The tag's still there, so if you are still concerned, you may want to take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD. Alternatively, you could add your reasons for being unsure of the notability onto the article's Talk page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hungry Horse, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mkdw^talk 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Fresh One Productions, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. – Recollected • 17:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ratarsed. You have been one of contributors to the {{Infobox power station}}. Therefore I notify you that There is a discussion about changes to the power station infobox template. Your contribution is welcome. Beagel (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Martin Heron 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sionk (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martin Heron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Heron until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been cordially invited to discuss Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gymnastics#Major competitions and medal records for athletes following this and this discussions. Thanks for your quick and prompt response. --Osplace 15:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The article BusinessObjects OLAP Intelligence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rick Kirby is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Kirby until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Portal:Gymnastics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gymnastics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Gymnastics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Comprehensive schools in Suffolk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robertsbridge Community College is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robertsbridge Community College until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latvia-edu-stub has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the stub template guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the template's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]