User talk:Coolguy22468/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Hello, Coolguy22468/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Geniac 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham sta

Please read the talk page on applicable articles before moving pages. Simply south 12:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sunderland station

I am now trying to get this reverted. Simply south 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stations in general

Can you please not move stations without a vald reason? Many stations are shortened to station instead of "railway station" because they are served by two or more forms of transport. Heworth and Sunderland are both also served by the Tyne and Wear Metro, which although it shares the tracks with the National Rail Network, IT IS NOT part of the system. This can be applied to other metro or tram or light rail systems etc.

Secondly, it has become common usage with small letters for "railway station" and not "Railway Station". Again, please provide a reason in the edit summary for moving this.

Simply south 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 13:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Helensburgh Central railway station

The information you recently added to the above article is not correct. North Berwick is the UK's most northerly electrified station. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving pages

If you move pages then be aware that the template commonscat stops working. All the pages that used to point to River Dove don't anymore, unless you have fixed them all. Victuallers (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

St Mary the Virgin Church Uttoxeter

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of St Mary the Virgin Church Uttoxeter, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.surfingincognito.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2VuLndpa2lwZWRpYS5vcmcvdy9pbmRleC5waHA%2FdGl0bGU9U3RfTWFyeV90aGVfVmlyZ2luX0NodXJjaF9VdHRveGV0ZXImYW1wO3JlZGlyZWN0PW5v. 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. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

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) 14:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wood End, Atherstone

Hello, I've reviewed Wood End, Atherstone against the GA criteria, and I'm afraid that it's not ready at this time. I've left some comments at Talk:Wood End, Atherstone/GA1 which will hopefully give you something to work with. Regards, --Beloved Freak 22:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that there's no stigma attached to an article failing a GA nomination. Lots of articles go through more than one nomination before they get there. The template needs to stay on the talkpage though to help other editors see that a review has been done at some point. Regards, --Beloved Freak 09:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Hi there! I've just undone your addition to the RfA page. You need to create the page before you transclude it. It should be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MarkBegg. There's some good instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate including a tool to create the page with the default questions in.

However, I'd strongly urge yuo to reconsider standing, because I doubt you've much chance of passing. That's only because your edit count is still quite low. Most voters will be looking for at least 2000-3000 edits before they'll support. Happy to advise you if you'd like. Ged UK 12:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Baxterley Church

The article Baxterley Church has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not clear how this church is notable. Lacks any references to 3rd party references.

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. RadioFan (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Baxterley Church

I have nominated Baxterley Church, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxterley Church. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RadioFan (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please visit this AFD again, I've added 2 additional church articles to this AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep Please refrain from deleting any of these articles. I will work with this user to improve all three churches. MarkBegg - please consider the following advice then ask me on my talk page if you need any further help

WP:NOTE - Notablility does need to be established for each church.
It may be useful to consider what other users are doing with similar articles.

See the work I have done on

See also the stirling work Peter_I._Vardy (talk · contribs) is doing on churches such as

Whilst reference styles vary a little, you should be using in-line references as per WP:REF - see above example articles
Consider broadening your sources a little. Church websites are not good secondary sources. Consider the appropriate volumes of Victoria County History, Pevsner The Buildings of England and Organ, Clock, Stained-glass and Bell databases

I hope that helps --Senra (Talk) 16:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I hope you don't mind, but I would suggest in future creating such articles in your user-space where they are less likely to attract the attention of over-worked and sometimes over-eager new-page patrollers. Anyway, do please consider my above suggestions as constructive and do please ask me on my talk page if I can help more specifcally --Senra (Talk) 17:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I need help here, Mark. Why are these mainly 19th century churches built? Was it industrial revolution? Was it growth of the methodist movement causing the See of Lichfield to respond by building more churches? One way or another we need to establish notability for each of these churches or the get deleted --Senra (Talk) 19:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not know the area well enough to help too much although I wll do what I can. Thank you also to Uncle G (talk · contribs) who provided the following reference which you may find at your local library: Redfern (1865), "History of Christianity in Uttoxeter", History of the town of Uttoxeter, London: J. Russell Smith, pp. 151–155, retrieved 29 ;August 2010 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |First= ignored (|first= suggested) (help) --Senra (Talk) 20:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

RadioFan (talk · contribs), who was the Article For Deletion (AfD) nominator (nom), has kindly withdrawn all four churches from the deletion discussion - thus they will not be deleted. This is because between us, we were able to prove that the churches were notable (WP:NOTE,) even in some small way. Well done. To avoid this happening again, I counsel that you should create any new articles as a drafts. See How to create a new wiki page. The relevant part is

Consider creating the article first in your user space. As a registered user, you have your own user space. You can start the new article there, on a subpage; you can get it in shape, take your time, ask other editors to help work on it, and only move it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go. To create your own subpage, see here. When the new article is ready for "prime time", you can move it into the main area. (Note: the Article Wizard has an option to create these kind of draft pages.)

I use the above drafting process for all my articles; not just for my first article. In addition, we should continue to work together over the next few weeks to make these four articles works to be proud of. I am guessing you are more local to these churches than I (I am more local to Little Thetford) so to be frank, you are in a better position to add information to these article. Do not hesitate to ask me for help on my talk page anytime. Good luck my friend

--Senra (Talk) 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Callow Park. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

St. Mary's Catholic Church, Uttoxeter

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of St. Mary's Catholic Church, Uttoxeter, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.catholicchurchuttoxeter.org.uk.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reviewed the article and the alleged source and can find no COPYVIO. I would counsel MarkBegg or indeed any editor to look at more sources, such as Pevsner, Nikolaus (1974) Architectural Guides: Buildings of England:Staffordshire --Senra (Talk) 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark

Hi, no problem with protecting the page, but we don't shoot until we see the asbo (if you understand what I mean). Our silly person up till now has only vandalised the one page (i have looked previously) until (s)he offends on this file then we will have to wait. OK? Victuallers (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Uttoxeter GA nomination

Hello, I'm afraid Uttoxeter has not been listed as a good article, as it needs a bit of work still. I have left a review at Talk:Uttoxeter/GA1. I hope it is useful to you in developing the article.--Beloved Freak 10:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

West Nottinghamshire College

Hi Mark. I've reverted some of your recent edits to West Nottinghamshire College because they are not encyclopedic enough to include in an article that is strictly a description of a school and its academic history and work. If you woud like to know more about our policy on this, do take a moment to read up on WP:NOT#NEWS, and if there is anything you still don't understand, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Wood End, Atherstone

Hi. I am afraid to say that the article Wood End, Atherstone that you nominated fails to meet the GA criteria at present. I have left some suggestions on improving the article on the review page which should give the article a point in the right direction. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Andrewmc123 15:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankie Boyle image

I know it is annoying to be reverted, so this is just to explain the problem with Channel 4's Frankie Boyle image. The Wikipedia "rules" are that you cannot use someone else's copyright image if it would be feasible to get a non-copyright image (it's the first point at WP:NFC#UULP). The idea is that you don't need to use a copyright image, because you could always go and photograph Frankie Boyle yourself as he is a living person. So if you want a picture for the Frankie Boyle article you can't use C4's promo image. Instead, you must either find one that is licensed for re-use, or take a photograph of your own. However, there is an exception for articles about films and TV programmes (points #4 and 5 of WP:NFCI), which permits use of a low resolution image (if it is specifically relevant to the film or broadcast) as part of critical commentary in an article about the film or programme. That's why the C4 image is OK to use in the Frankie Boyle’s Tramadol Nights article. Even so, you have to add a specific "Non-free media use rationale" claim to the image page, once for each article the image is used in. For an example, see File:Tramadol Nights - C4 promo image.jpg. I hope this is clear but if you have any questions please drop me a line on my talk page. Happy editing! - Pointillist (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Since Derry is in Northern Ireland, I think that the articles should say in Northern Ireland. That is a much more specific location. I was reverting it to Ireland since that is the name of the island. I am not sure about you, but my American ears and eyes hear and see United Kingdom and automatically think of the island of Britain.. England, Scotland, Wales. Dincher (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

St. John's church, Marchington Woodlands

I have deleted St. John's church, Marchington Woodlands because it contained some very serious allegations about a living person, without a reliable source to back them up. Please check WP:BLP and be very careful when introducing such statements into articles. Fram (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

St Augustine's Church in Flimwell

I've noticed that you tagged St Augustine's Church in Flimwell for speedy deletion under G1. However, keep in mind that G1 only applies for what is truly patent nonsense, which is explained here to mean something that makes absolutely no sense, including a string of random characters. The article in question only restates the title, which means that it falls under WP:CSD#A3, or no content. Also, keep in mind that many new users will add content to the article after creating it, so please wait some time before tagging a new article for speedy deletion under A1 or A3. --Slon02 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You just did the same thing at Jason Brandonman, and the speedy deletion template has been removed there. Please keep in mind that G1 is only for articles that are truly nonsense. --Slon02 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was wondering the same thing, do you even know what patent nonsense is? Baseball Watcher 22:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am most amused. You tag a stubby article for speedy within a minute of its first appearance. And then a day or two later you lay yourself open for just the same treatment. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kingstone, Staffordshire

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kingstone, Staffordshire 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It is an insult to Wikipedia to submit an article as stubby as that. Instead of moaning on the talk page, would it not be better to actually provide some useful content? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of doing that C. 22468 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed. You have been editing for nearly five years and have apparently not learnt that you should always develop articles in User:Coolguy22468/sandbox until they are viable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

First Glasgow Route List

Hey - please go ahead and remove this article. Was going to go through the process in talk myself anyway so would be beneficial.

Sadly this is an example of offline discussion and someone else then having a change of heart!

Sorry for the inconvenience Madscotinengland (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Coolguy

I have now deleted this page, however you tagged it under A1 for deletion for not providing sufficient context. Just FYI for future reference, it should have been tagged under G7 because if the author has blanked the page that can be taken as the author requesting deletion.--5 albert square (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

St. Mary The Church of Our Lady, Merevale query

I was wanting to geo-tag St. Mary The Church of Our Lady, Merevale, but I see from maps that there are two buildings that could be the church: the gatehouse shown in the article photo, and in the grounds within, a much larger church surrounded by a graveyard. Do you happen to know which of these buildings is St. Mary The Church of Our Lady, Merevale? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)