Hello Trident13! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 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 insure 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 943 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Biscuit (bread). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Biscuit. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Biscuit - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Sasank Sleeper (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion on the Wiki Food & Drink talkpage re language confusion. I am just putting in place the discussion there held, creating a series of suitable sub articles to stop the grand language confusion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at your recent changes to Biscuit. It's very late at night/early in the morning, so I'm not really able to hold it all in my mind right now. It looks like many of your changes are improvements. However you have a Biscuits in British usage section, but not one for American usage. You retain a Beaten biscuits section, which seems best as a subsection of the deleted American usage section. I see you've created a Biscuit (bread) section that might be deleted quickly. Your work seems to be valuable (final judgment postponed until I'm thinking better ;-) ). Please fix up the British/American stuff before all is lost by a deletion. Lou Sander (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussion you liked to on my talk page. Indeed you will Find that I posted to it. Clearing up the category confusion seems good to me, although I am not sure that I agree with the solution suggested. Some of the stubs you are creating seem like good ideas to me, and the text you have added to Biscuit and the text that was in Biscuit (bread) when i last looked at that article (some hours ago) generally seem to me to be good text that should stay in Wikipedia. But I am not convinced that having Biscuit and Biscuit (bread) as separate articles is a good idea. Of course I am only one editor, and the matter should be settled by consensus, on talk:Biscuit, in accord with the advice of WP:MERGE that merge discussions should usually be on the talk page of the proposed target page. I remain open to arguments for separate articles, and i hope everyone in the discussion will be open to considering the reasons put foreward by other editors. DES(talk) 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems: the old page mashed a number of edible things called biscuit into one page, resulting in reader confusion; secondly, as I have undertaken the exercise, it is fairly obvious that the individual items mashed into the old page were under developed - the article on Biscuits and gravy which I have added to currently lacks references. At some point the page would have got to big, and there was a discussion which you could have taken part in. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That the page would need to be split anyway is a reasonable argument for not merging, please make it in the relevant discussion. Whether having the different items called "biscuits" discussed in the same article is more or less confusing than having them in different articles is of course a matter of opinion (i tend to disagree), but again that is a legit argument for the merge discussion. Saying "there was a discussion which you could have taken part in" seems to imply that the discussion is over -- which is not correct. If you didn't intend such an implication, my apologies. I would suggest that this is better discussed on Talk:Biscuit, where anyone interested can read and participate, than on your talk page or mine. DES(talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the merge tags. The prior discussion in no way closes the issue, as most of that discussion was about categories, not articles, and in any case consensus can change. Please do not remove them unless the discussion at Talk:Biscuit#Merge of Biscuit (bread) results in a consensus not to merge, or perhaps a deadlock with no consensus. Merge discussion can last quite a while before being resolved. DES(talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm contacting you as a significant contributor to Elton John. I am concerned that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Wikipedia:Quotations. If reliable sources cannot be found then all contentious material should be removed - [1]. It is better for us to have no material at all than to have incorrect, misleading or potentially libelous material. Will you help to source the article? SilkTork *YES! 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notablity, minor roles in movies and incidental mentions in newspapers do not make this sportsperson notable according to WP:ATHLETE, which requires competing at the highest level of the sport.
On February 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Devonshire Dome, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Malmesbury, Wiltshire a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Malmesbury. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Nanonic (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you had looked through the edit summaries I placed on the page, or looked at the history of the page Malmesbury, then you would have noted that someone moved the article about the town to create a disambiguation page to link to a series of articles about the town. Much as though I dislike Cut & Paste options, it was the most appropriate in this case. I have hence deleted your tag to move the page back to Malmesbury, Wiltshire. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! The tag isn't there to move it back, the tag is there to inform an admin to drag across the entire page history for the old article and put it into it's new location! See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Nanonic (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:English recording studios[edit]
What's the definition for Category:Rail yards in the United Kingdom and is there a Category:Defunct rail yards in the United Kingdom planned? Although STJ certainly was important in its time, it's little more than a couple of platforms these days. It's only warranted in that category if we're including defuncts. Given the existence of Defunct for stations in the post-Beeching world, would we be best doing the same for yards? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Caroline Nokes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Happy to discuss on the articles talkpage, but your disruptive edits currently construe vandalism. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you can keep this rubbish on your talkpage, don't post on my talkpage ever again.
You should also re read WP:VANDALISM as my edit was totally in a good faith attempt to impriove the wikip[edia. I have opened a thread on the talkpage there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with the page Caroline Nokes on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Supported by notable and sufficient third party references from numerous reliable sources, and further her own pledge pre-election to Christian values which covered adultery, you also left the references section of this article with significant damage. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
heres the other one for you. As I said, do not ever post on my talkpage ever again Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Caroline Nokes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Happy to discuss on the articles talkpage, but your disruptive edits currently construe vandalism. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you can keep this rubbish on your talkpage, don't post on my talkpage ever again.
You should also re read WP:VANDALISM as my edit was totally in a good faith attempt to impriove the wikip[edia. I have opened a thread on the talkpage there and await your explanation there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a thread at the WP:BLPN where you can make a case for inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not refer to others' edits as "vandalism" unless the edit clearly meets the description at Wikipedia:Vandalismand you could legitimately claim a Three-revert rule exception. Edit warring under the guise of reverting vandalism is a blockable offence and could be construed as a personal attack. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The status which this edit and this edit by Off2riorob clearly left the article without references and with damage which met Wikipedia:Vandalism. Further, there was an insufficient edit summary on both occasions. I thank you for your note, but stand by my actions having followed the stated rules, particularly in light of the agreed keeping of the statements after the discussion at WP:BLPN which Off2riorob took part in and agreed with. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 June 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Cumbria shootings, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Middlesbrough Estate or Estates, and spelling[edit]
Hi, could you please have a quick look at Talk:Saltburn Pier and let me down gently if I'm being an idiot? :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, and a nice solve I hope! Not being a native of said area (been a couple of times, nice views and architecture), I came at this from developing the article on George Croydon Marks, and noticed the two rather large gaps we had; so hence the investigation/creation. This pdf from Redcar & Cleveland councils archive confirms it as "the owners of Middlesborough estate" (page 39, section 4.15). It also highlights how awful our current Saltburn article is, and what a great source of detail this conservation area plan would be. I looked around Wikipedia and Google for sources for Middlesborough estate over the weekend, but could find much - a books job I guess, unless you know better? Hope this helps, happy to discuss further. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On June 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Saltburn Cliff Lift, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.
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) 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support![edit]
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and aside from seeing that you're a learned person I assumed that you're Welsh or show a real interest to Wales (I wish I have the opportunity and time to visit your country some time soon!), so you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trident13. I notice you're a big contributor to the Aberystwyth article. As you can see, I've added a new section on governance. My plan was to add this table showing the town council composition from the last local election (see table here. I wanted your advice on whether you think this has a place within the Aberystwyth article, whether the town council merits a page of its own, or whether you think it's best to leave it out all together.
Thanks, Woodgreener (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, hope this finds you well! Love Aber, nice place but a bit isolated. I normally get there in the summer, on one of my long bike runs: twice so far this year. I noticed your great addition, and it would be good to develop it. The general guideline would be to develop it in article, and then if it gets too big/dominant move it to a separate article. I like developing new articles and such additions on personal stubs - you can play with layout and make mistakes without them appearing in public - so why don't we create a stub and develop there? Best Regards, - Trident13 (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you did some edits to the Bracknell page and have just created a new one on Mac_Fisheries so I gather you know a lot about this former company.
I am a little puzzled that you say that the Waitrose distribution centre was built on the land occupied by the former Mac Fisheries HQ. I moved to Bracknell in 1971 and worked across the road from there. The Waitrose building was in full operation at that time - used to watch their big lorries when I got bored.... I don't remember any mention of the Mac Fisheries HQ, but their shop in the town centre was doing a roaring trade for quite a few years after that and was very popular. Would be interested in more information on this. Dsergeant (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update. The old Mac Fisheries HQ was on the Met Office roundabout. When they closed it remained empty for some years and the site eventually redeveloped. I think Johnson and Johnson were there at one time, now it is an Avis building. I don't recall Waitrose ever being there but may be wrong. Their HQ and distribution centre is as I said on the Southern Industrial estate in Doncastle Road and built around 1970 on what was originally farmland - farm was still there in the 70s but is now long gone. Since your statement about the Mac Fisheries site on the Bracknell page is incorrect I have removed it, if you have other evidence please say so. Dsergeant (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, you recently commented on my pages- the new bespoke movement. I appreciate your comment, but i am in fact a fashion student studying tailoring, unaffiliated ot the row and this was a point of interest i came upon in my research. As regards references, many are from books i have read, and which are available in hard copy. Could you please give further suggestion as to how i may be able to make this article more neutral in your opinion? Thank your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeontherow (talk • contribs) 12:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. When you come across a copyvio template like the one here, please don't edit it. The template says page shouldn't be edited until an admin or an OTRS agent has resolved the issue. Looking at your user page, it appears you are neither. Normally I would not make a big deal about it, but after you removed the copyvio template the copyvio text was still on the page.--Rockfang (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio template had, from what I could find searching Googloe, been placed incorrectly. The editor who placed it should have edited the sections where they felt it broke such rules, or placed tags around the appropriate sections. Instead they took a lazy and administratively poor solution. As Scholl's have just been nominally purchased today as part of the sale of SSL International to Reckitt Benckiser, what does an incorrectly placed copyvio tag say about Wikipedia? Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search probably wasn't needed as there was a link to the source url in the Copyvio template. Also, the deletion policy states to "...replace its entire content...".--Rockfang (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, I think we can agree that it was a an awful article! I wanted to understand the relationship between the original company and the two operations today (North America/Rest of World) which I think my draft-text re-written article addresses. Let me know what you think. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft looks good. Definitely better than the current article. One option available is to use the archive parameters with the cite web templates. It isn't required, but it helps with link rot.--Rockfang (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the 2010 Attlee Spelling Campaign. Motto - "It's not major, but it's The Major"[edit]
Dear Trident13,
Some sorries: firstly, sorry for bothering you again; secondly, sorry that this is a bit of a form letter (although, actually, it has been personalized for you by specially trained elves in at least two places); and thirdly, that I come over as a mad or maddish person suffering from some form of OCD ... which, unfortunately, is about right.
I'm writing to ask if you would please consider correcting the spelling of Clement Attlee on your page here:
where it is currently misspelt Clement Atlee twice. Please?
Since I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this, I see it often - probably more often than is healthy - in searches and so on. Your correcting it would not only very slightly improve the sum of correct human knowledge, but would also lessen the chances of my suddenly attacking someone on the Tube for snoring, pushing, spitting, sniffing, reading the wrong novel, or whatever - so really it is a double benefit to personkind. I could also attempt to bribe you with Linzertorte, though it would have to be virtual unless you can easily make it to London, EC1 in order to be bribed in person.
I can't tell me how happy it would make me if you would please correct this small but (I think) important matter.
Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, sorry, didn't mean to start an avalanche, but thanks - that's another distraction (however minor) gone. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For not only writing a new article at Dr. Scholl's to replace the foundational copyright problem there, but for writing a better article than Wikipedia ever had on the subject. Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask one of the BBC WM presenters to look at this article to get the link to the Llanelwedd Arms Hotel. So I have sent her the link to the previous version. As far as I am concerned, the link I put in is not "spam", but part of the general encyclopaedic information about Llanelwedd. I would have like to say a lot more about this hotel, having found it to be one of the relatively few places to eat out wher you wish you lived near enough to go back there regularly. I restrained my contribution to mere encyclopaedic facts, rather than what could be counted as partisan advertising. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the Michelin Guide or the AA Travel guide. Unless the hotel or any other premises is notable in the history or culture of location which is the focus of that article, then its inclusion is wholly questionable. See WP:NOT where it states that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Unless you can justify it on grounds within an encyclopedic entry, then I or another editor will continue to remove it. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It seems that in this article you have referenced a Royal Forestry Society page which is now a dead link. I really just wanted to check the citation for an extraordinary 1890s guy who who commanded a ship known as the I.S.S. Enterprise. I see also that much of the content is unnecessarily duplicated in Leyland Cypress, so I've removed that bit from the Leighton Hall article. Hope that's OKwith you. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. The ref was easily found on the rfs site via a Google "site:search" so I have updated. Also think you trimmed the cypress issue too much re how the first types of the species were named, which relates directly to the hall, so reinserted one para. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is Walker2005. Just to clarify, I am not related to Ms Khan in any way professionally or personally. I keep abreast of her career. I do not belive the article as it exists now that you have removed the PR spin, which I welcome, reads like an autobiography.
If you want to read an autobiography, read this article!!
Karan Bilimoria, Baron Bilimoria
I am merely someone who does not like vandalism to Ms Khan's article as I have seen quie a lot of that going on in the last few months.
Your recent edit to the page on Dwell Retail LTD was factually incorrect and was vandalism, as well as libel.
Dwell Retail LTD is based in London, as anyone who does a basic check on Companies House website can determine. The information on the location of Dwell's head office is public information, in the public domain, as Dwell is a private limited company.
Please DO NOT make up any more ficticious, libelous locations for Dwell's head office, or stores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it best you do not edit the page for Dwell Retail any more. It is not merely a wikipedia page; it is information you personally are placing on the public record, in writing. As such, you are immediately eligible for libel action. Especially if you decide to relocate the head office hundreds of miles across the UK without consulting the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note R.e. Dwell retail
External links added to article are NOT spam. They are articles written by a third party about Dwell Retail. The fact you see them as favourable perhaps is your problem. Dwell is a company in the UK - it received some funding recently. That is a matter of public fact, which a third party wrote an article about. You can continue to delete and suppress this information from Wikipedia, but others will simply continue to add it again. It's a matter of fact. It is not for some individuals on Wikipedia to decide what is or is not fact. You should learn that at the same time you learn Dwell is not based in Milton Keynes.
Removing external links to stories which relate to Dwell Retail means there is less information available to the public about Dwell Retail. This is not positive nor helpful.
Please note your edits will now be forwarded to an administrator, so your account may be blocked from further acts of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note your tagging of article Dwell Retail as not being written from a neutral point of view has been opened for debate on the talk page for that article. Please respond, so that the article can be made more neutral in future. If you cannot find any parts of the article which are not neutral, please remove the redundant tag. Jsecure (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even in a little place like Hanwell there is more than one cemetery so you need to give your articles more formal names so that people wont have to guess which ones you writing about. There are three cemeteries in Hanwell. Two inner London boughs have one each and they both refer to them as “their” Hanwell Cemetery just to add to the confusion.
Also, I have had a look at your link to the Westminster cemetery website and I think they meant to say that the cemetery was originally owned by St George, Hanover Square, before being taken over by City of Westminster and thus having its name changed (from St George's) to become the new “City of Westminster Cemetery
There is a brief bit of history that might make things clearer, and that you may want to include in you article:
[2]
This composite image will show how much confusion the present article could create with the current title .
Think that a new title “City of Westminster Cemetery, Hanwell” fits in well with the WP naming convention. Don't forget to go back and check any articles you may have updated in error.--Aspro (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note - I hope this finds you well! I came at this from wanting to write an article on the Not Forgotten Association (on a personal stub presently, in development), which lead to me writing the article stub on its founder Marta Cunningham, which lead to me writing the article on Hanwell Cemetery, where she is buried! I notice that Mill Hill Cemetery, which is also a City of Westminster location, is far more interesting (lots of war grave stuff, so lots of refs), but again doesn't presently have an article. Not being a local I defer to your greater knowledge, and happy that you move it to the suggested title of "City of Westminster Cemetery, Hanwell." What would be your suggestion on the naming of any article on Mill Hill Cemetery, and equally should the article on East Finchley Cemetery be named in the same convention? Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed how many new articles that you have created and thought wow! So I award you the original barnstar for your contributions, keep up the good work! :) Jdrewitt (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed from my watchlist you had removed loads of external links to Digitaldigging. Is there a particular problem with this site (has it been added to a blacklist or something) which would prevent it being used as a reference or is it just its inclusion as an external list which you are changing?— Rodtalk 12:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message - I hope this finds you well! I wrote the stub-article Marden Henge and had it on my watchlist, and noticed that Frogbit had added a link to that article, and placed it above the official English Heritage link. Looking at that users edit record, I noticed a similar pattern to the entirety of their edits: place a link to digitaldigging, and placed above any official/main website. I looked at digitaldigging which seems highly adwords powered, and as Frogbit broke the rules on WP:LINKSPAM, reverted his edit path. I placed a note on Frogbit talkpage, and thought I would watch further before deciding on next actions. If you think that any of the digitaldigging links do add value to the various articles, then happy to support their addition - but its just the clear WP:LINKSPAM I was reacting to. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've looked through and used some of the digital digging pages as references - particularly where no other references were included in the articles or where they include information wp didn't have (eg Scheduled Ancient Monument status). I also noticed User:Richerman had reverted your deletion on Sweet Track. Frogbit may have added loads of these links so I can see why you applied WP:LINKSPAM but many of them are useful.— Rodtalk 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the Wales article forward for GA status. It just needs tweaking, and maybe a heavy-handed swipe from outside to get it in place. I am writing to those who are constant contributors and defenders of Wales and Welsh articles, to not scream at me for doing this, but to help get the article through. If we fail, we fail, there is nothing wrong with that; but Wales should be a Good Article at least and if it takes good intentioned amateurs to reach that then so be it. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you edited the Dwell retail page, to downgrade the company's status from 20 stores to 19. Please do not make further libelous edits to the Dwell (retailer). Dwell is a company and you must not make false edits to it's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message, but can I please refer you to the rules of wikipedia, WP:AGF. I edited the article down from a piece of spam, to something which could pass for a suitable entry to an encyclopedia. The number of stores at that point according to teh companies website was 19 - hence the downgrade. The article still lacks inline references (the tag for which I note that you removed), and without such could therefore be subject to removal. As I assume you are associated with the company, please note your association on the articles talkpage under WP:BIAS, and add suitable inline references which back up the claims you have added. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Catherine McQueen, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've noticed you've reverted my edits at Outcasts (TV series). Sorry if my edit summaries were not detailed enough. Firstly, the name Outcasts in the first line should be italic per WP:ITALIC so it should be Outcasts not Outcasts. Secondly, there is no need to add the {{Italic title}} template as it has now been incorporated within the code of {{Infobox television}} (see here), which means now it is not necessary to add the {{Italic title}} template to individual television show articles, instead they are automatically italicised when the infobox is added. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've noticed that you've added loads of great pictures to Somerset articles & I've reused some of them on Portal:Somerset which I've been trying to improve - hope that's OK. If you have or know of others which would be suitable for the Portal:Somerset/Selected picture section could you let me know or add them? Also I've been working my way through Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Somerset and wondered if you might have any suitable photos for those articles which are missing them?— Rodtalk 09:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 10:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop tracing all articles edited by myself and adding derogatory tags to them. I will now speak with the police within the UK and my lawyers to see if a harassment action can be brought against you with the assistance of the Crown Prosecution Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. The tags I apply are inline with wikipedia ruoles which I suggest you start to follow. I note that your edit record and that of the Jsecure are similar, and also both have given other editors "legal" threats. Please note rules on using multiple ID's. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not tag the UltraStream article as 'not noteworthy'. UltraStream is a large streaming radio provider with stations in the UK, the USA, Europe, Australia and the UAE. It is quite notable. Continuing to claim it is not noteworthy is spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop stalking my IP around wikipedia and tagging any articles I have worked on. This is a form of harassment 81.100.64.222 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article UltraStream, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
Hello and thank you very much for your message. I am very pleased to see the excellent edit you did on my piece on Stella von Musulin and I am just about to insert the references you request. She is such an important figure in the area of Austrian letters and her friendship with Auden would make her notable in its own right but there is so much else to he that is worthy.
Many thanks
michael Natsyw (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now provided the citations requested but am lacking only the date of her death, which I am trying to find in Austrian obits, and also it will be impossible to prove that she worked for British Intelligence as this was 'hush, hush work' and no citations are available readily. Thanks again for your help and I very much hope that this article becomes a permanent on Wikipedia.All the very best. Natsyw (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, when you added the route diagram to South Wales Railway with this edit, you marked some stations with the letters "Req". Several of these stations are still shown like this on Template:South Wales Railway RDT. What is the purpose of these letters, and can they be removed? At first I thought that "Req" meant that the station article was required, ie not yet created, but you created the diagram on 21 April 2007 at a time that several of these station articles already existed; for example, Johnston railway station was created on 17 December 2005. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be for Request Stop! Hope that helps - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yess... although puzzlingly, it was shown against Neyland, a terminus. Accordingly, I've removed it from that particular row; and I've also explained the term on its first use, the row for Clunderwen.
Hello, Trident13. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, I hope this finds you well as well! To answer your questions/suggestions about the Engel & Völkers page. You are indeed correct I am a franchisee at E&V and almost all of my edits are about the facts. I will definitely follow your advice and read the guidance notes on WP:COI with regards WP:NPOV and conflicts of interest. Just a quick question, so if I understand you correctly I always have to place a summary about the edit that was made? Sounds very logical. But the real question is you mention something about: "please note all further edit request/additions on the articles talkpage". What does that mean that I can't edit anymore? or that i can edit and then have the mention my edit on my talk page? I want talk you in advance for the offered help and when needed I will send you a message. Sincerely, Nick De Clercq (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw you uncategorized a few articles for some reason. Ng.j (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NVM, saw it was overcat. Ng.j (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool! Yes, I hate over cat - but it occurs regularly, and sometimes/often how catA relates to CatB can be quite confusing, and hence (personally) why overcat occurs. Look after yourself! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When reverting, please take care to only remove the change you disagree with and not also revert other changes as you did here. I fixed an external link in addition to removing the template. Your revert put back the bad link. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary was meets WP:CREATIVE - clearly, this was inaccurate, as you did other stuff. I will note in future not to accept your edit summaries as truthful. WP:NOTAB tag reaplied, its needs refencing, and you shouldn't remove this tag without adding references, other wise its just your opinion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I will note in future not to accept your edit summaries as truthful"? Are you trying to be insulting? It certainly seems that way. Minor edits in conjunction with a major change are hardly unknown and easily seen via the diff function. I find your comment rather ironic given your frequent lack of edit summaries. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sugggest you read WP:AGF. Thank you for adding the references. Clearly, if you had done this in teh first place, there would not have been the need for your incorrect edit summary. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that someone's choice of wording can be considered insulting is not a violation of AGF. Claiming I was being untruthful was hardly a demonstration of good faith on your part. By the way, what I did was something you could have easily done instead of tagging it in the first place. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on him or his genre, and suspecting it to be a piece of COI felt it more appropraite to tag it for those with expertise in this area. It was your initial poor edit summary, assumptive conclusion and lack of adding suitable refs which created this debate; your continued flustering is now simply compounding your original poor choice. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So much for AGF on your part... -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found you on the editing history for the London Boat Show and I'm hoping you might be able to help me...... I'm currently trying to write an article on Careers In The Outdoors, a careers event for people wanting to pursue careers in the outdoors, which this year is being help alongside the Outdoors show and the london boat show. Sadly my first article was deleted for claims of advertising, and i am currently trying to edit it so that it meets the wiki rules. Do you think you can help me????
Hi Amelia, I hope that this finds you well! Love to know where you found me from, but I always love lost causes! I see that a helpful admin deleted your stub page - unusual behaviour - but I fetched most of it back from a Google recovery, and you can now find it here on my stub page: having been here a bit longer, they should let it stand. I can see why someone called it a piece of advertisng and tag'd it with COI, but I think there's enough there/refs available to create something which could stand. The lists of exhibitors and speakers is overly spammy/advertising as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Its a work day today for me, but will try and get something done over the next 24hours - keep watching that stub. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Trident13! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 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 insure 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 943 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
