I think this might interest you since you commented in the first deletion attempt. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Jackson (conductor) (2nd nomination)--Karljoos (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help move for the deletion of Rodney Orpheus' vanity page? It has been deleted before and was re-added.Theseus1776 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris

Have you been recruited into the Wiki Theatre Project as yet? If you look at recent sections of User talk:Theolimeister you will see what he/she is up to, and it may help our endeavours to have this handsome label on the discussion pages, while fearing the worst about the ratings that will be added: ((WikiProject Theatre)) Best wishes, John Thaxter (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not been roped into the Wiki Theatre project yet, but I'm open to any requests they might have. I can keep adding new pages (I'm currently aiming to do all the main plays from 2001 as I know them rather well), try to improve the existing ones I've done, improve pages of other pages on Ayckbourn plays, improve the Alan Ayckbourn page itself, or set about on a task elsewhere in the theatre project (last three in ascending order of toe-treading).

Thanks for the help with Private Fears in Public Places, by the way. Do you have any objections to me tidying up the references and citing all the newly-added reviews?

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris, Go right ahead with the tidying process! John Thaxter (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a journalist who is normally restricted to 250 words for a review and 500 for a feature I think the comment that your Drowning on Dry Land synopsis is too long is merited! I was thinking of subbing it down from its 1,200 words to around 700 (although I think it could lose another hundred) and came up with this much shorter draft, which I leave you to edit or use as you please:

Note: draft deleted as the final edited version now appears in the Drowning on Dry Land article

I will look at the review situation later. Best wishes, John Thaxter (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made a few small alterations. I admit I do overwrite a bit, and that draft captures most of the information that I think ought to go in. I've made a few alterations myself to preserve a few of the things that I felt were lost, which pushes the word count from 767 to 795, but that's still an improvement on the original 1170. I'll put this up and see if it resolves the matter.

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was the guy who tagged the article. I think this looks much better now, though perhaps could still do with some shortening. You may find it helpful to look at Writing about fiction Style guidelines and also Featured articles for Wikipedia's best articles on the subject Ged UK (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris, I have done a complete edit, amending the typos and incorporating a couple of gags as well as a couple of review quotes. Hope you like it. I have also deleted my giant draft above, since the only true version is now centrepiece of the article. Best wishes as always John Thaxter (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Private Fears in Public Places. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris, You have already provided a link to the Ayckbourn site which reproduces all the major reviews of If I Were You. But there was also a British Theatre Guide review for the post Scarborough tour, written by Sheila Connor reviewing in Guildford - see it at [1].

BTG also has a review of the North West 2008 'premiere/revival' which might shed further light on the play to readers!

Of the Damsels in Distress trilogy, although I was writing for The Stage for they commissioned a 600 word review to cover the three. So even I cannot break it up into three separate pieces! Sorry about that. Best wishes, John Thaxter (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally compiled a summary of the reviews on the [If I Were You (play)|If I Were You]] page. When you've got a moment could you tell me what you think of it?

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will want to know about this:

Salisbury Playhouse Autumn Main House Press Nights 2008 Press night Friday 5 September, 8pm DROWNING ON DRY LAND By Alan Ayckbourn Thursday 4 – Saturday 27 September Directed by Sarah Esdaile This, only the second professional production of Ayckbourn’s DROWNING ON DRY LAND explores society’s current obsession with celebrity status and fascination with the ordinary people who desperately try to achieve their fifteen minutes of fame. It is directed by Sarah Esdaile whose previous work includes KAFKA’S DICK, Watford Palace Theatre; THE GROUCH, West Yorkshire Playhouse. Press night Friday 3 October, 8pm

Best wishes John Thaxter (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about this. I've had a look at the Wikiproject Theatre page about subsequent professional productions. It says that notable professional productions should be included (with another list of cast and crew) but it's not too clear as to what qualifies as a notable production (except that amateur productions most definitely don't count).

My totally unqualified view is that this production, at the moment, counts as notable because it demonstrates that DoDL has a stage life beyond its original production. (I probably won't bother with a cast list though. Should further professional productions come up, this one may lose its mention outside of the link to the Arts Archive.) However, if you're more familiar with the notability rules then please let me know. I probably won't have time to add this before next week, but I won't be offended if you go ahead and add it yourself.

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see If I Were You. I reviewed Damsels in Distress for The Stage at the Duchess and, like everyone else, wrote a portmanteau notice — which thanks to the inadequate Stage indexing is now lost forever, somewhere in the archive. I am recovering from an op at the mo' but when I feel better I will have another look at the two articles although I am sure you have written two excellent pieces.

As far as reviews are concerned, I personally prefer to see them linked directly to the Stage, Times, Teleg, Guardian and BTG website from the article about the show to which they refer. Best wishes John Thaxter (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am linking reviews directly to the page of the original newspaper that published the review. I only link to the review held on Simon Murgatroyd's site if I can't find an online version from the official source. This has been happening frequently with reviews of pre-2002 shows as the availability of online versions of the review outside of the Ayckbourn site is sporadic. If you manage to find a link to the original article from the Stage, Teleg etc which I missed, please go ahead and change the link to that.

If you have the time, I would especially appreciate help with the reviews of Haunting Julia. In particular, I can't seem to find any reviews for the important 1999 revival.

Thanks for the help you've done so far. Please edit the reviews sections as much as you like, because this is an area where you probably know a lot more than I do. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Seen you around a few Ayckbourn articles. Good stuff. Maybe now he's approaching retirement, we'll be able to keep up with his output! Hope you're OK with the changes I made to the Plays of Ayckbourn footer template you made. I know it looks a little ugly with all that red, but I think it's important to show what is left to be done. Also, it means that if someone comes along and spontaneously creates an article, it'll be linked to immediately.

By the way, I'm in preparations to direct Intimate Exchanges so will be doing some research over the coming months - but the play is performed so rarely (it seems) that I can't find much. If you come across anything, send it my way and I'll put it all together into an article. GDallimore (Talk) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong feelings either way about redlinks. The only problem is that I may feel obliged to complete the 72 article. Damn.

I find that, if all else fails, the best resources to used for Ayckbourn plays are the official webpage maintained by Simon Murgatroyd (in principle under Ayckbourn's control but in practice Simon Murgotroyd has editorial independence), Paul Allen's biography Grinning at the Edge, and Paul Allen's guide to plays. I'm currently focusing my efforts on plays I have seen performed by the SJT company, because that means I have seen them performed as they were meant to be done. (Ayckbourn plays are very easy to do badly.) This means I have Life and Beth, Woman in Mind, Time and Time Again, Way Upstream and Relatively Speaking and (soon) How the Other Half Loves on my list. Intimate Exchanges is a bit more of a problem because I only saw two of the eight forks. You're welcome to make a start on it, and if I can add anything, I will. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been in touch with Simon M before (he was kind enough to send me some press clippings for Woman in Mind) and was planning on contacting him again for Intimate Exchanges. Unfortunately, my production has been pushed back by 6 months so I'm now unlikely to do anything with that play in the immediate future. GDallimore (Talk) 14:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your comments on the talk page for Peruvians in the United Kingdom which I have since attempted to expand. I would appreciate further comments of these changes. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for redirecting the page i created. I want to know how can i put the entire content of the Fazail-e-Amal to Fazail-e-A'maal. Because being a native urdu speaker i believe that the correct pronunciation is represented by the latter. Its the same difference as Quran and Qur'an. Muhammad Hamza (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion on the Fazail-e-Amal page as to whether the article should be renamed. If there is a consensus, someone will move it. If no-one says anything, that can also be taken as the go-ahead to move an article, although that will be tricky and required a bit of technical knowledge. However, I'm hesitant to rename a page that has existed for that long without asking what other contributors to that article think first. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have redirected the article Lantern Waste to List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia#L which has very less information about Lantern Waste in the fictional place Narnia. The article Lantern Waste is a stub and will expand someday. You are not supposed to redirect it so soon. This is very disruptive behavior. Do not do it again. Srinivas G Phani (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:INDISCRIMINATE if you haven't done so already. Wikipedia does have articles on fiction in them, but they are meant to summarise the story, not go into every last detail, so just because an article has "more information" doesn't necessarily mean it belongs on Wikipedia. If a page was previously changed to a redirect and no-one challenged it back then, it is generally considered reverting against consensus and that behaviour is discouraged.

What I'll do is see what Wikiproject Narnia thinks, and leave it up to them. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing:- I will not keep on checking your talk page to find a new conversation. Whatever reply, reply it in my talk page. We put a stub article notice to ensure that users expand. The basic information is already there. There are many other articles redirecting to List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia. Help improving the articles. Also see Lantern Waste. It has been expanded. Srinivas G Phani (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't start an afd, if you believe the 2 lines worth an article to be satisfactory, that works for me. --Rmzadeh (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering what were your suggestions for making the articles about Winchester bus routes more encylopaedic. If you could tell me I would be pleased.--Adam mugliston (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, articles should concentrate on things written about the subject by other third-party sources, so in this case you might want to look for books or newspaper articles about bus services in Winchester. But even re-writing it somewhere along the format of the Cardiff article ought to be a good start. Try to avoid going into excessive minute detail, especially when it's liable to go out of date very quickly. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought you might want to take a look to my thoughts on the Fowler AFD that you commented on here. I've proposed a combination of keep/merge/delete for each of the winners. Esteffect (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, old bean, I haven't actually read the guideline, actually! Troublemaker1949 (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris,

Thank-you for commenting on my article so politely - ie given the context (proposed deletion due to it not complying).

My article is 'The Gate Church International, Dundee'. I completed it yesterday.

The reason you gave for the proposed deletion, was that it fails to fulfil the Notability criterion.

What do you suggest? Should I trawl through newspaper cuttings in the local library? I know there have been various articles about The Gate (eg something about a dance event hosted there, obituary article about the death of the former pastor, etc.)

I am aware it's risky submitting an article about an organisation you are involved with. Yes, you've guessed it, this is the church I belong to.

I would be grateful for any help you can give. By the way I'm quite thick-skinned, even though I am a newcomer to Wikipedia.

Rachel Chown (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

First of all, you've done the right thing asking for a way ahead rather than resorting to either extravagant claims of importance or accusations of censorship. Wikipedia editors tend to be more helpful with this approach.

The first thing you need to be aware of is that Wikipedia is not a directory of all organisations. The notability standards are there to, amongst other things, keep the number of articles down to a manageable number. I have to say that the odds of this article meeting notability don't appear to be in your favour. Should it pass notability, a lot of the content of this article isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Articles should concentrate on what other people have already written about the subject, not a detailed list of all the current activities an organisation has, and certainly not anything intended to promote the subject - that really belongs on the organisation's own web page.

Having said that, there are possible ways forwards. The options I can think of are:

1. You can persist in trying to establish WP:GROUP, although I wouldn't recommend this myself. Usually they'll want more than a bit of local press coverage. (Persistent and substantial local press coverage is better, as it coverage in the national press.) You can go looking for press cuttings if you want, but that may not be enough. If you with, the article can go to a deletion discussion where consensus will be reached on what to do. Having said that, schools and churches tend to get looked on a bit more leniently, so you never know.
2. If Stuart Brunton is more notable than the church, you could write an article about him and briefly mention the church in him. Again, having had a quick look through Google News myself, this is still on the iffy side for notability. (Having said that, he did get an obituary in a Glasgow newspaper when he was based in Dundee, so maybe.)
3. The other thing you can do (and this, I think, would be the most useful contribution) would be to expand Christian groups sub-section in the Dundee article. If you have a lot of material to add, you can create a new article called something like Christian groups in Dundee or Religious sites in Dundee using the existing text as a starting point. There ought to be no problem mentioning your own group in that article provided you don't give undue weight to it (and you might also want to declare you association on the talk page first).

Let me know what you'd prefer to do, and I'll see if I can help. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris,

Thank-you for your comments. I've thought about it, and decided not to persist with trying to make this article comply, as it clearly does not fulfil the notability criterion. I don't believe that enough has been written about The Gate in the press to provide the necessary reference material.

Your suggestion about adding something about the church to the existing Dundee page (in the Religion section) seems the best way forward to me, and I am planning to act on that.

Thanks for your help.

Rachel Chown (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

And what about "The New Shaolin Temple", it's in pre-production stage tooVilnisr (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else in pre-production stage needs deleting/redirecting too. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging Posth just now; but when you speedy-tag an article, you should copy to the author's talk page the warning that is generated as part of the speedy template on the article. Otherwise he doesn't know what has happened, thinks he must have pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Also, if it is a new author who has not yet had a Welcome template, I think it's important to give him one before the speedy warning; it's less BITEy than just a warning. ((subst:firstarticle)) is a good one, which points him to links like Your First Article. On the actual tagging, read WP:CSD carefully - many of the tags are misused. There's good advice at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, thanks for speaking up (at the George Lee AfD) the inappropriateness of making speculations about voters' political leanings. But in your edit you also made some minor changes to another user's comment. This was probably just an honest mistake, but anyway, please be careful not to modify others' comments. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first I've heard of that. I give you my word that on this occasion I never touched anyone else's posts. No idea how that happened. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping you a line to say I'll be starting an article on Ayckbourn's Intimate Exchanges in a couple of weeks. I'm directing a production and my programme notes should make a good start to an article: I've written a brief production history and synopses of all 16 possible variations (without copying the Ayckbourn website). Will let you know when it's up if you want to develop it from there. GDallimore (Talk) 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent news. One decision we'll have to make at somepoint is whether this counts as one play or eight plays (and therefore eight pages). My preference would be for one general page and one page cover the plots is as much detail as the plots for standalone plays (so we'll be talking about 450 word per second act). Good luck with your production. Where can I expect to see it? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. GDallimore again, but on a public computer, so not logged in. I've found that the plot to the 31 different scenes can each be described in a couple of very short paragraphs or less. Any more than that isn't necessary because none of the plotlines are particularly intricate and Ayckbourn has used a fair amount of "filler" which is interesting enough, but completely irrelevant to the play as a whole. Nevertheless, I think you're right that a separate article: "List of plot threads in Intimate Exchanges" or something might be needed when the article reaches critical mass. 8 pages would definitely be excessive!

This is my production if you're in the Reading area: http://www.getreading.co.uk/entertainment/theatre_and_dance/s/2068872_intimate_exchanges_a_play_with_16_endings. 85.189.199.237 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, done... Blue links ahoy! GDallimore (Talk) 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article now. You may wish to make further comments at the AfD page. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am working on a project for London film premieres for a summer sponser and see Mark had a page before though it was deleted for lack of notability. However, I would like to add a new page for Mark Boardman and have already citiated below many missing articles regarding his TV, radio and other work which make me positive he should have a permanent page here. He would be a big asset to Wikipedia and a great resource. There are a number of people rallying for him to get one and his recent press in the papers and magazines should attribute this.

Having researched, I have used sources and the below is the draft I would like to submit for a new WIkipedia page.

[Snipped as now included on page created by JohnCD]

Tvstarlondon (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have tidied this up a bit and put it in a user page for him, and will give him some advice (including not to spam the same request across multiple talk pages). You are welcome to give him more advice, but I don't think this has much chance - it was deleted at AfD, recreated, G4-ed and salted, and there is nothing new here - main claimed celebrity seems to be as a celebrity-chaser. But Mr Boardman has a determined SPA fan-club - Celebritypresenter (talk · contribs), TVfanaticlady (talk · contribs) Celebrityreview (talk · contribs) and now Tvstarlondon (talk · contribs), and it may end up at DRV. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chris Neville-Smith. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your "weak keep" at the AFD. Please take a look at the latest version of Fox Jackson-Keen. Do you have any advice for further improvements? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm sticking with Weak Keep. The article is better, but I was wrong to say he was the first UK actor (he's only the first London actor), and the two roughly cancel out. I don't have any further suggestions for improvements, an d I think this is probably as notable as the article's going to get. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments at AfD, we have a guideline - WP:AIRCRASH, which is not as widely supported as it once was. My own thoughts are at User:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents, you are welcome to comment on that page's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was an attack page not a nonsense page. Access Denied – talk to me 11:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPH has NAC'd the AfD you contributed to and moved the article to The Chair (Grand National) and established The Chair as a disamb. I have no problem with that but don't think the current name is quite right. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:The Chair (Grand National)#Rename. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Superchips (AfD discussion)

You'll want to revisit your rationale there. Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sisterly feelings.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we just find out that the hotel in question is a Grade II listed building, i wanted to ask you to maybe revise your voice. Thanks. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more sources, hotel is quite known for its fitting, you should see that also. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, it's been a while since I last contacted you but I just wanted to raise something and see what you thought. I was having a rare wonder through wikipedia today and came across your page on Things That Go Bump and it raised an interesting question. While there was a Things That Go Bump season at the Stephen Joseph Theatre, there is no such thing as a Things That Go Bump trilogy by Alan. Things That Go Bump was just the title the SJT came up with for a season of three Ayckbourn plays. Alan himself has never actually labelled the three plays as Things That Go Bump largely because they're such a loose trilogy written, as you correctly note, over such a disparate time. He doesn't refer to them as the Things That Go Bump trilogy. I'm not keen to edit wiki pages as I've been there before and it wasn't particularly a good experience for me and I suspect we'd end up going back and forth on this anyway; but as you put a good deal of time and care into your Ayckbourn wiki pages, I thought I'd raise the issue and see what you thought. It might be as simple as noting in the intro that it was the name of the season rather than the three plays. Whatever you feel, I just wanted to raise it for your thoughts. Best Wishes. Simon Murgatroyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurgatroyd (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the page to try to work in this exmplanation. I don't think I can remove the references to trilogies completely, because even if Ayckbourn isn't referring to it as a trilogy, a lot of other media outlets are. It would help if you could clarify the status as a trilogy on the Ayckbourn page - Wikipedia pages are supposed to be cited to reliable sources and shouldn't really rely on private correspondence, no matter how authoritative the correspondence is. (By the way, a Google search for Things That Go Bump Triology turns up several pages within the Ayckbourn website that refer to it as a trilogy, so you might want to alter those pages if that's not correct.)

Let me know if you're happy with this. I know there's the pages of the individual plays to clarify as well, but this is a start. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond and for altering the page. As far as I'm aware (and certainly as far as I can tell from Google), there's only one specific reference to the Things That Go Bump trilogy which was a mistake on an out-of-date commissions page (oops!). There are references to the three plays being considered a trilogy and being part of the things that go bump season, but not a trilogy which has a name. Anyway, as always thanks for considering my suggestions, it's always appreciated. Hope you're well and keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurgatroyd (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris. There has been a history of edit warring over the infobox location details in 2011 England riots. To try to stabilise this, and raise another closely related issue, I've started a discussion topic here: Talk:2011 England riots#Location details, widespread pattern of arrests. Since you've made many contributions to the article, I'd be grateful if you would come and comment. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 01:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Chris Neville-Smith! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Hey Chris.. Everyone needs our help, though I recommend you patrolling the page you have added a speed deletion warning (for others to know that you did what you just did) or use Twinkle everything to be automated. (Like, a click.) Thanks for Patrolling again though. :-) JohnHWiki talk - 09:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd done that. Did I miss one? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know.. I saw 2-3 articles I think? I guess you just missed it. JohnHWiki talk - 00:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris Neville-Smith! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName 
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. So long! --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me towards the source of the "providing scholarships to about 100 women worldwide", I think you may be getting this confused with Rhodes Scholarship ? Mtking ^(edits) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the project's own web page (which isn't the most reliable source of information but I'm assuming they wouldn't be able to tell porkies on that scale and get away with it). I'm in two minds about this one because I'd have thought that something on this scale would have more reliable sources written about it, but I can't find any apart from the two Huffingdon Post articles. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the claim ("Almost 1,000 women have now taken up the scholarship." from here) is in reference to the Rhodes Scholarship and not to funding from the Project which looks totally unrelated to the scholarship. Mtking ^(edits) 22:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in December 2009, you contributed to a deletion discussion for this article. The result was 'no consensus', but two years later, I still believe he is non-notable by our standards, and have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Hanley (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly was these two posts insulting? One was a reply to me, and I certainly don't see an insult. They were a few minutes after the closure, but that's another issue. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It was the "don't be a jerk" edit summary which I had issues with. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see that, just saw your revert. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your past editing activity, you may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre#Award enumeration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris Neville-Smith,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June 17, Pauline Pearce. Matt 190417 (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]