Hello Flapdragon and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Harry - I saw your question on the help desk ("I was considering suggesting an article for featured status, and wondered if the presence of links to as yet non-existent articles is considered a no-no in featured articles.") . I'm the "featured article director" so I know my way around the process fairly well. We have two big rules on the featured article candidates - all objections must be actionable (that is, they can be fixed) and that they must be intrinsic to the article itself (that is, whatever problem you object to has to apply to the article itself, and not to something outside the article). In the case of links to nonexistant articles, thsoe fall pretty much into the latter category. If you have tons and tons of red links, someone will probably ask you to turn them into stubs; but as long as you don't have tons of them, it shouldn't be a problem. →Raul654 07:54, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Raul, many thanks for you helpful post. I'm pretty new to this (not even sure if this is the right place to reply, I hope you'll see it!). But I'm very impressed by the whole Wikipedia thing, in terms of coverage, quality of articles and the largely positive spirit of contributors, so have started cotributing the odd article. I have only one or two red links, very relevant to the article, so I'll just write stubs for them to make them blue. Then I'm not sure if I should submit the thing for peer review as has been suggested or just straight to the featured articles suggestions page? Harry 11:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Either way is fine. →Raul654 06:37, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:32, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

That was quick! Very flattering to see my article on the front page. Thanks for letting me know (and for choosing it, if that was to do with you). Harry 01:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in improving the Armstrong article. I do have a concern that in your generally good edit to "streamline flabby and misspelt para" (I fear such flab and misspelling is likely my fault, sorry) some relevent information might have been lost. Specifically, that Armstrong thought that laxatives were good for preserving one's health in general, not just for losing weight. (There were other points as well, such as valuing the practice taught him by his mother. No doubt much more could be written about Armstrong and "Pluto water", Swiss Kriss, etc.) Perhaps we could discuss on Talk:Louis Armstrong? Thanks, -- Infrogmation 13:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. My reply posted there. --Harry 13:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(moved from User:Flapdragon)

Re Pope John Paul II - "(traditional views -> conservative views, more precise and avoids repetition)" - I was about to make the very same change myself but saw that you'd got there first! Ben Finn 16:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great minds... Flapdragon 19:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I heard the story on a BBC TV programme; there are numerous references to it on the web although without much further detail. These include the BBC's discussion of the Benn story [1]; Hansard also carries a brief discussion of it.

Thanks. Flapdragon 11:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"On 20 Mar 2005 you reverted a small edit to University of Oxford as "vandalism" which was nothing of the sort. The Assassins and the Bullingdon, added by an anon contributor to the list of Oxford "Institutions", are indeed two well-known (not to say notorious) Oxford dining societies."

My wrong. Since Bullingdon was red link, Assasins pointed to Alamut thugs rather than innocent students and there was no description at all I made guess it was all nonsense. When looking on user talk page I saw other complaints, one specifically for Oxford.

Looking to this user page again: it is shared IP with one guy putting a link to his company to Oxford article and another one(s) making good edits. This is situation that makes mistakes very easy. Pavel Vozenilek 17:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered adding yourself to the Gloucestershire wikipedians category? To do so, add this to your user page:

[[Category:Wikipedians in Gloucestershire|((subst:PAGENAME))]]

--Celestianpower ^hab 15:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FireFox 17:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea if this is where you get your name from, but I've just written an article on flapdragons, and if you know anything more about them I'd be delighted if you could add it!

Cheers, Ziggurat 03:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the compliment! I first came across the game in The Annotated Alice, and was surprised that there was no good single source for information on the practice (I'm going to try it this Christmas, I think). The article was intended as the best single reference on Snap-dragons on the 'net, so that next time someone looks it up they don't have to wade through lots of Victoriana to get some information! Ziggurat 03:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw you edited this page...hahaha I cant believe this is a genuine literary work. freestylefrappe 01:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have expanded this article explaining typical taverna cuisine and operations. I would be grateful if you could have a look at it and see what you think. Capitalistroadster 10:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be speedy deleted as vanity. It's already been deleted at least once in the last day. chowells 18:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made thAT PAGE On Green Fields because i go to that school and i know what it is like. You should thank me for adding the information about the school. (unsigned comment by 68.0.135.203)

I've just changed a couple of your speedy tags from the last few minutes. They were speedy candidates, but you used the wrong tag. No big deal, but something to watch out for.WAvegetarian 02:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still not sure what to do about this. No one has been in touch since you swooped very efficiently on it.

What exactly should I do to get it re-instated and find out how I acknowledge my other page? Kleinzach 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done what you suggested and have been in touch with Permissions. James D. Forrester wrote back to say "your permission has been confirmed and archived" however my I Capuleti page is still in limbo as a result of your action to prevent an assumed copyright violation. Can you possibly take the necessary action to get it released? Thanks. Kleinzach 17:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright violation procedure doesn't seem to have been correctly followed as the article was never listed on the Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. This should have been done by the person raising the issue. --David Woolley 19:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The versoin with extra comment was the last version that I saved. I haven't looked at the speedy process, but there is a two day time limit on that, so it is no longer an option. You would certainly need to have it labelled with the right tag for it to be actioned by anyone. The template you included specifically says that you must add an entry on the copyright problems page. I don't believe there is anything magical about the copyright violation template that prevents it being reverted, although if it were actually listed and were reverted without agreement, it would be considered vandalism.

I don't want to get involved in deciding whether there really is a violation at this stage, but if you still are in doubt, you should list it, but starting from today. He can quite legitimately licence the same content on his web site with a more restrictive licence, if he owns the copyright; the question is does he own the copyright, not what are the permissions on the other site.

--David Woolley 07:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you've restored some SAMPA which I'd deleted in favour of IPA. When you say that SAMPA is "much more browser-friendly", what browsers had you in mind? There used to be a problem with MS Internet Explorer, but this has now been overcome provided that the Template:IPA is used. At one time a lot of articles used SAMPA, but almost all of these (apart from technical articles specifically dealing with phonetic transcription) have now been converted to IPA-only, in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). SAMPA and X-SAMPA are just ways of displaying IPA on systems which (unlike Wikipedia) can't cope with the IPA characters, and I can't imagine many people will be familiar with them and not with IPA. --rossb 06:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Using the IPA template is easy: ((IPA|[fənˈɛtɪks])) gives [fənˈɛtɪks] (I hope this appars OK on your browser). As far as SAMPA is concerned, I also think it looks ugly, with the odd mixture of upper and lower case and funny punctuation marks, and some of the characters can be really misleading, for instance V for ʌ or Q for ɒ. And of course it's just as meaningless as IPA to anyone who is not familiar with either! --rossb 17:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might be able to help with this. Something odd happened when I listed Peter Hollasfor deletion on 19 November 2005. The formatting magic wouldn't work on that day's AfD page, and failed to put in the header, so that the article sort of disappeared into the melee. Perhaps due to this it attracted no vites even though it's an obvious hoax. Should I relist it? Otherwise it looks as though nothing will ever happen. Flapdragon 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem was that you didn't include the header. There is no automatic "formatting magic"; it has to be done by manually. I've done so and listed it on today's afd page. —Cryptic (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And how would I do that? The instructions are (AFAIK) to add a line like ((subst:afd3 | pg=PageName)); neither that nor inserting a new line like line above (((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName))) worked, though it always has in the past. Try as I might I couldn't see how to edit the "source" that produces this effect. Many thanks for your help with this. Flapdragon 16:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not step 3 that you missed, but step 2. If you're adding it by hand (instead of the idiotic m:instruction creepy afd2 template), it's a normal level-3 header with a link to the article, like ===Peter Hollas===. —Cryptic (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you put in a nomination for Vinyl siding downspout hanger, which appears just before my attempt to nominate Mamnuts. I don't know what I've done wrong! It's not displaying properly! Please can you have a look at it and see if you can fix it for me? Ta. I was sure I followed the instructions. Zordrac 23:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC) No, it was my fault (sort of). I still think that they should make it explicitly clear that normal brackets are not used - they use squiggly brackets ) }. Can you tell the difference by looking at them? )})})} ({({({. Zordrac 23:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks for noticing the mistake I made with the title. --rolo 02:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks once again. --rolo 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for redirect which is what I wanted to do - not worked out how to do that yet Jameswilson 02:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flapdragon, you wrote in a recent edit summary: "External links" is correct.

That is a point of view, and one you are certainly entitled to... but it is no more than a point of view. From Wikipedia:External links:

"External links" vs "External link"

Some editors use the header "External link" if there is only one link, but others use "External links" in all cases. There is currently no consensus on which is better. Editors who always use the plural form may prefer it for any of the following reasons:

1. experience shows that future editors often add links without changing the section heading
2. people may be dissuaded from adding links to a section titled "External link" since it seems that there should only be one link
3. using "External links" gives greater stylistic consistency to Wikipedia

The converse arguments are:

1. Wikipedia's community-editing leads to prompt correction of such oversights.
2. There is no evidence that a significant number of people would be dissuaded from adding links. Besides, additional links would often be redundant.
3. Use of "External links" to head a section containing a single link is fundamentally incorrect, a poor precedent to set in an encyclopedia

Picapica 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two of the delete votes cited the article as vanity and "nn-bio". However, it was neither, as you yourself pointed out. So, seeing as AfD is emphatically not a vote, I decided to close it as a keep. I have also substantially rewritten the article and chucked out everything that the AfD was voting on (so essentially it's the same as deleting it, except that the stuff is still in the history) and moved it to Geoffrey. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said, the new article was moved to Geoffrey, where the original page history can be found. And while I agree that the AfD process should be more transparent, the fact that it is not a vote means there will always be subjectivity involved in interpreting consensus/community decision. Depending on how the discussion goes, different or even the same admins can make different decisions in different debates with the same number of "votes". So my interpretation of consensus in this case was "no consensus; default to keep". I know that's a bit shady, but I think for many people (or at least for me), like the famous US Supreme Court justice who discussed profanity, "I know it when I see it". Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, so that was the issue. Well, I was under the impression that in AfD, consensus is only needed to delete; if there is no consensus, depending on how the discussion went, the article may be kept or merged/redirected. (At least, that's how I read our deletion policy.) So if an article is kept but there's no consensus, it's not too hard to presume that it was kept by default due to a lack of consensus. A 2-to-1 vote is not always consensus, I might add/repeat. (There's a bitter edit war raging over this on Wikipedia:Consensus last time I checked — some people are trying to insist on inserting numerical definitions of consensus into the page.) It depends on how the discussion went. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link was malformed in the previous edit, which is why it was asking for log-in information (I logged in and got an error message for my trouble. The correct link is on there now; figured you might be interested to read it since you obviously clicked it before. :-) Jibbajabba 23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created a fairly simple Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it. Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So have we lost both instances of the external link, now? Perhaps better to keep one, under "External links"? (Not my addition, btw, just looks useful). :-) JackyR 13:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers, and arrgh! I'm sorry, the "Must use Show Preview" summary was a note-to-self (cos I had to amend the above.) Hope you didn't think I was getting at you... Btw, ta for fixing Lloyd. JackyR 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the sentence on the Linda Smith page, can we discuss it on our user talk pages please? That wikipedia page on linda comes reasonably highly on a google search. I'd hate for her family, or anyone who cared for/loved her, to click on that talk page and find squabbles about the page. Not that I'm suggesting you're squabbling. You have genuine questions & make valid points. I was just unsure where this may go & wanted to steer it this way. The comment does mean that it was more figurative and less literal, for her than "many". Because she was a humanist, the concept of the devil held little meaning for her. Although, there aren't that many christians in britain today, an awful lot of people regard themselves to be spiritual. Other religous groups, such as muslims believe an the devil too. So the devil holds more meaning to many. I really like that comment. There's something quite affectionate about it. I think if her family & friends read it, they'd probably see the reference. But if you're against it, we can compromise. I like it & stevecov seem to like it also. The guy that deleted it, doesn't like it. And if you don like it we're tied. So the next person to comment can decide whether it stays or goes? Veej 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, fair enough. I'll just add a little explaination of the phrase on the talk page then. Veej 16:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Flapdragon.

I thought that fa-SEEN, as in do re me fa sol la ti do, would be better than the possibly ambiguous fuh. I could see someone whose first language is not English interpreting f-u-h by sounding out the letters "ef , ooh, ha: fooh, or fookh". I'm not married to it, so change it if you disagree.

I generally prefer IPA over the ad hoc pronunciation guides which are deprecated by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). IPA now seems to be at least as common as the various old not-quite-consistent systems from my high school dictionaries, and it is familiar to readers of current Oxford dictionaries worldwide, as well as people from Europe and the Far East (a Taiwanese acquaintance learning English was using several "English for Chinese" books relying on IPA transciptions). The ad hoc pronunciation seems to me to be useful only to native English speakers, and in some cases only to either Brits or North Americans; not necessarily to both. I can see how they can be useful to convey trivial English pronunciation, but when possible I prefer to write something like "rhymes with machine" (although I couldn't think of anything right for fascine), or at least use actual short words in the pronunciation (hence fa, not fuh).

An example of accessible IPA for less trivial names is at an older version of Pleiades (star cluster), although someone has since removed the guide under the table.

Great illustration on your user page. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-03-13 18:57 Z

Someone is trying to delete this article, can you make a vote and write at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurophone. --JimmyT 11:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day,

I thought you might be intertested to see that the article about The Magnet Pub is [for deletion], as you are the only contributor to its talk page. Regards, *Satis 02:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The argument is largely over. But I want to re-emphasize just what an encylcopedia is by asking you to read these definitions from reliable dictionaries: Funk and Wagnall's (Encarta), Oxford Concise, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, Random House Unabridged, Cambridge, and The American Heritage Dictionary. They all emphasize how encyclopedias cover all fields of knowledge (or rarely, everything about one subject [e.g., literature]). You are advocating moving a two-page article from an encyclopedia onto a site for books. Think about how ridiculous that seems. It doesn't help that moving it there would make the entry nearly impossible to find (as no one would look for it there and few visit the site).--Primetime 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumably "the argument is largely over" means "I have no answers to give". You are still unable to explain how anyone would find the entry where it is at the moment. You fail to answer either of my questions. You fail to retract or substantiate your unfounded allegation that I misquoted you. And yet again you fail to understand that "covering all fields of knowledge" (ie not specialising in one field) is not the same as including all and any categories of information or giving the reader practical tips on how (not) to do things. Encyclopaedias are not there to teach people how to speak a language. It's very straightforward concept. Can you point to a single comparable entry in an existing English-language encyclopaedia, ie an article about a foreign word that might be the result of a mistranslation? Or do you just know better than all existing encyclopaedias (not to mention those of us whose professional background in language reference publishing goes back a decade or more) what should go into them? Flapdragon 11:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not true. I can debate this forever with you if you'd like. Many people come to Wikipedia through Google. I have observed that the larger I make my articles on Wikipedia, the more visitors it attracts, and the more prominence it gets in Google searches. Thus, in the future, when someone searches for embarazada in Google, my page will be displayed first. Further, Wikipedia is searched using OneLook Dictionary Search along with other reference works.

As for other encyclopedias that define words, I already mentioned the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana. There's also any of the encyclopedias made by Larousse. As for quoting me out of context, you said "but specifically asked people (most of them very new to WP) to support him 'as a favor' (or even 'a huge favor'): 'I would be greatly in your debt'". That's a misquote as I did not ask anyone to support me.--Primetime 11:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally i am rubbish with IPA, so to me "gregg" is certainly more accessible, however, i was under the impression that it was wikipedia policy to only use IPA, seeing as spelling things out can lead to differences in opinion. Was what you added, really following guidelines? Amo 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see User_talk:Smallweed. Shyamal 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember me from my old vandal days? Especially this range of edits. Sorry for doing that. Now I am a good wikipedian. Thanks, --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Flapdragon. A long time ago, you added a reference to the page about the IPA. It was:

• Geoffrey K. Pullum and William A. Laduslaw, Phonetic symbol guide, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1986, ISBN 0-226-68532-2.

I know it's unlikely that you'd still have the book, but if you do, could you tell me which facts in the article it should be cited to? If it helps at all, the article looked like this when you added the reference. I ask because we are trying to bring the article up to FA status and we need to cite sources in the text.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand. Perhaps there are some facts in the article that could be cited with the book, though? Which facts could reference it, that could've been from the book?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to Philippe de Rothschild's memoirs as well as other memoirs of the Rothschild family, his estranged wife, Elisabeth (Lili), was not gassed or did she die of typhus at Ravensbruck. All the histories of the family state that she was thrown alive into an oven. Mowens35 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be researching this and citing the family's understanding that she died neither of gassing or nor of typhus. Mowens35 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stand corrected. Cheers, Ron --RDT2 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there Flapdragon, a couple of questions I hope you have the time to respond to - Any reason (apart from the typo and me apparently being "confused and speculative"!) as to why you possibly deleted the following? Seeing as my friend (another Millport resident) was Lynn Ferguson's tutor at art school???

As written - A recent BBC Radio 4 series, Millport (radio show) (written by Lynn Ferguson, the voice of Mac in Chicken Run by Aardman Animations) humorously covered most of the tired clichés about an island community stuck in a cosy 1950s timewarp - but perhaps these sentiments explain why the island is still so popular in the minds of both nostalgia-seeking 30-somethings and fresh-eyed visitors.

Current (completely denuded of local context; have a look at [[2]] to get a flavour) - The island was immortalised in the BBC Radio 4 comedy series, Millport, written by and starring Lynn Ferguson, the voice of Mac in the animated film Chicken Run.

I would also be interested to ask your advice as to why several other edits that have been made to this page since I last visited - clearly from contributors hundreds, if not thousands of miles away - have been allowed to "ride roughshod" over the authenticity of the entry (i.e., removing the work of an actual year-round resident - myself!).

Many thanks cordeaux

Hi Flapdragon, still not sure why you have deleted the entry or why I'm "confused and speculative", it's hardly controversial! Has to be seen in the context of the West of Scotland - try looking up Elaine C. Smith.

""confused and speculative"" cordeaux

Hi, times ago I had an other talk about this. You are correct: this cannot be called Messa di Gloria because there are other parts. Nonetheless, Ricordi for a long time entitled the piano score (not the full score!) "Messa di Gloria". Just one of the many mistakes of musica publishers! but many people still know and use the wrong title. If you need a bibliographical reference about the Messa, see Dieter Schickling, Giacomo Puccini, Catalogue of Works, Bärenreiter 2003, pp. 69-73.

BTW, I wrote it:Giacomo Puccini, where you can find correct info about his compositions. I am an Italian musicologist. Best, --Al Pereira(talk) 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear. Move to Messa (Puccini): the title Messa di Gloria is wrong! --Al Pereira(talk) 12:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally disagree that "the entry should refer to the work by the name that is actually used", but the name that is actrually used is Messa. That's all! If you don't know the most important catalogue of Puccini's works, this is your problem, not mine. I gave you the bibliographical reference. How difficult is working on wiki. If you don't know the question, trust whom knows it. --Al Pereira(talk) 12:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 16:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is your problem??? The heliopolii were also called "the destroyer of cites" when originally used a siege towers. Dont go editing and deleting comments from users that have information to back their fascts up. whaoag 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flapdragon: error it may be, but I have seen "my" erroneous form in print many, many times in the past 45 years or so - and therefore I assert that it has some currency. Also, why rely on Google search? I'm not sure it "proves" anything!

Also, why did you remove my addition of "Ynys Môn" for Anglesea? Hair Commodore 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snapdragon, you're probably right - I certainly concede most of your points.

The only thing I'll add is that I do have a "User talk" page - so please direct any response there, and not to my "User" page - which I have not set up yet (or hadn't, until you created it for me!). By the way, if you saw me, you would - instantly - know why I call myself User:Hair Commodore! Hair Commodore 18:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Flapdragon. Thanks for your help and adding value to my articles. Quick question, how do I avoid Peter Young (Head Teacher) from being deleted? See it's talk page for more. Thanks!

Tinminer 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for feedback Flapdragon on my talk page.

I have to disagree with you though, for the simple reason that the Computer Suite is named in his honour. If you went around a stately home and say a room name Joe Bloggs, you would be interested in why it was named as such. I feel that, in terms of the history of Marling School it, at least, deserves a mention.

Tinminer 11:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Flapdragon. Thanks for your help and support so far. I have done a lot of contributions on the Cornish media category (which I also created), and I have written over 15 articles which fits within the new category (e.g. The Cornish Times. However, there has been no Talk/Discussion feedback on any of them as yet. How do I ask for other Wikipedians to look over it and comment? Many Thanks! Tinminer 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just come across the article on the Brenin Llwyd and noticed your comment on the Talk Page. To say that I have doubts about the article's authenticity would be an understatement. I've given my reasons on the Talk Page and was wondering if you have anything further to add? I think the article belongs in Fantasy or Fiction. Any suggestions? Enaidmawr 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diolch am eich ymateb. I've added some references about the unreliability of the source that's been added on the article's page and also a further note on the Talk page. Rwtsh ydy'r gair, yn fy marn i hefyd. This is just a bit of American "Celticana". Hwyl, Enaidmawr 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hypnotoad_animated.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a question for you regarding your changing of pages to British English. Although, true, some pages are regarding European companies, is not wikipedia an American enterprise? Since the great majority of wikipedia users (and people in the world) use American English, should not the encyclopedia, too, use it? If we went by this 'European therefore British' rule, what do you suggest we do for African related (South African Enlish?) Oceanian related (Australian English?), and Asian related (just none altogether?) pages? Are pages discernably tied to certain dialects of English? Should not then, pages about France or Germany be in French and German respectively?

I'm sure you can see where I stand on the argument, but I didn't just want to go back and blatently revert the pages. Please consider this and at the least give me some reasons why your method is better. Alexandre-Jérôme 05:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is clear that I am have not familiarized myself amply with the regulations of wikipedia; you are correct. Would you be so kind as to show them to me? I consider myself corrected: good job and continue to embetter wikipedia as you so clearly have been doing! Alexandre-Jérôme 06:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AH!! I found it without needing you to show me. The rule is, "do not change it without reason," "only change it if it is directly related to a certain country" and "if not specific to any English-speaking country, use the original version" Therefore, since the original version was British English, you are correct to have changed it. However, what you said about its being European being a reason is incorrect so although you were 100% correct on many things and deserve applause for being well-informed, be aware that the reason given is not the actual one Alexandre-Jérôme 06:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought you might be interested in this: Gorboth. I've removed the references to Welsh myth and the Welsh mythology category. Sounds like the Brenin Llwyd all over again! Diolch am eich cyfraniadau y tro dwetha. Hwyl, Enaidmawr 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, EDXOR, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EDXOR. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacuum Cleaner 01 (talk • contribs) , at 20:12, 17 May 2007

The village was originally known as Llanfair Pwllgwyngyll "St Mary's church in the hollow of the white hazel", and there was a nearby hamlet called Llantysilio Gogogoch "the church of St Tysilio of the red cave". The names were linked by an in-between feature, the chwyrn drobwll, or rapid whirlpool. Diolch am dynnu fy sylw at hyn. It's well-attested that the "full name" was invented for the tourists. According to the late Melville Richards of Prifysgol Cymru, Bangor, widely regarded as the leading authority on Welsh place-names, Pwllgwyngyll was the medieval 'tref' with a church dedicated to Mair; so it became Llanfairpwllgwyngyll with time. Never heard of "a nearby hamlet called Llantysilio Gogogoch" (as it never existed, I'm sure!). The whirlpool in the invented name could be one of those on Afon Menai. The assertion quoted is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. I'll take a look at the article later this evening when I've more time. Diolch unwaith eto. Mae angen cadw llygad barcud ar yr erthyglau am Gymru i gael gwared o hen lol fel hyn (a'r "Brenin" anhygoel 'na!). Hwyl, Enaidmawr 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally got round to it; changed the paragraph in the article and added a note after your comment on the Discussion page. Drwg gennyf am adael pethau mor hwyr ond dwi wedi bod yn rhy brysur dros y dyddiau dwetha - sôn am "hwyr", be dwi'n wneud dal ar y we yr adeg yma o'r nos? Hwyl a nos da, Enaidmawr 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Crwth-in-case.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the ((GFDL-self)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Siebrand 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia in my user discuss. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 80.34.135.128 12:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Edxor, by BassoProfundo (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Edxor is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Edxor, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Notetab_icon.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The potentially libelous comments on the Bennie Railplane article keep getting reinserted by the same user. Granted if the guy has a source to back it up, but now he's putting it back in in bold. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comments were reinserted and reverted by myself a couple of other times. Finally I left a warning that the comments could be taken as libel without sufficient evidence or citation to back the accusations up and since then it seems to have been left alone Douglasnicol (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As stated there was no published material on Hugh Fraser until Malcolm Thwaite discovered his identity and role in the design and development of the Railplane. Mr Thwaite spent over seven years and £3000 researching the Railplane, including visiting Fraser's son in Yorkshire and his former business partner in Hemel Hempstead. Mr Black's research materials can be viewed at East Kilbride Library and there is nothing whatsoever on Hugh Fraser. There is however a copy of a letter indicating that the Glasgow Museum of Transport were in possession of a research file of Mr Thwaite's on the Railplane which, if true, they no longer had any right to possess. Perhaps you should be more concerned about Intellectual Property Rights than alleged libel. Better still read Mr Thwaite's paper, The George Bennie Railplane and Hugh Fraser Airrail Systems of Transport which, last year, was awarded the L T C Rolt prize by the Newcomen Society for the best paper published in the previous three years.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Douglasnicol"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.205.189 (talk • contribs) , at 23:29, 30 November 2007

The guy really is incorrigible isn't he, I even tried leaving a message on his talk page explaining wiki's position on what can be classed as uncited sources and the damage that can be done and he comes back with a snappy comment. If there's no backup, it doesn't go in in my opinion. Douglasnicol 00:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrigible. 'Beyond correction, reform or alteration'. Collins Concise Dictionary. Perhaps that definition applies more to you than to myself since you clearly appear unable or unwilling to acknowledge either the citations provided or my observation that Wikepedia policy does not prohibit annotations. Your suggestion therefore that I came '...back with a snappy comment' beggars belief. Simply sitting on the sidelines pontificating about non-existent Wikepedia policy and refusing to accept, much less check, verifiable citations not only does Wikepedia a serious disservice but displays a lamentable misunderstanding about serious scholarship. Had you reviewed the policy in the light of my comments and checked the citations and found them flawed I would have been the first to accept 'correction, reform or alteration'. The tenor of your comments throughout however suggest your real objections are based on personal dislike for the annotation (which ironically IS against Wikepedia policy) than it does any real concern either for Wikepedia or for the rules of serious scholarship (which includes editing). As I have shown there IS backup so unless you can demonstrate that there isn't you have no right to delete the annotation.

There is a one man campaign being waged against dining clubs one the grounds that they don't deserve articles. I see you've previously edited one such article, and was wondering if you'd care to lend your support at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dining_club ? Many thanks Grunners 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. Back in July, you noted on this article's talk page that it looked like a copyvio; well, I just noticed it, and indeed it is, from this article: [3]. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. In future, if you think an article is a copyright violation, you should probably let someone know at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, otherwise no one may notice for some time, as happened in this case. Thanks for leaving the comment, though - if you hadn't made it, I probably wouldn't have thought to investigate the article myself. Terraxos (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you might be interested in a few tidbits I found. They are here: Talk:Great Auk. Cheers! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, a fellow listener! [4] Just listening to the podcast and headed over to make that change myself :o) ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:MichelinManRunning.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex West. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had edited this article at one point, and someone had said that Shaw was in The Black Book. I took his name from their list, as well as a couple of others. Since someone had put him there, and since the copy of the book I had said it was interesting that he wasn't on the list, I put down what was said in the book by the translator, John Erickson.

Since what I put seems to keep you awake at night, feel free to go in and remove that sentence, if it's got you so bothered. Thank you. Openskye (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Flapdragon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,863 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the article:

1. Roxanna Panufnik - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Is there any news on the shark's scaffolding? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, sorry - you just moved that comment from the article, didn't you? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SacredHarp1991ed.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited XXY (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sexuality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lanarkshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

<sarcasm> It's a good idea to make an article nearly un-editable to preserve the single usage of the UK english word "tyre", especially when every other wiki page that is linked to by the UK spelling uses the spelling that is most prevalent in the world: tire. The Queen's English must be defended at all costs, it is more important than having a solid well written article that can be easily edited to add more information and that follows the spelling conventions of the wiki for every other article that deals with the subject. </sarcasm> Drn8 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Hand of Glory a year ago, you made a perfectly sensible (but incorrect) statement that Lapland sesame oil as an ingredient was a modern joke. It was actually a spelling error dating back to 1752.Arildnordby (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have deleted a reference to the castle being placed on the market with no indication as to why. The castle is 'under offer', so this statement is still valid. Shipsview (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies - misdirected comments! Shipsview (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hymns and their makers

Thank you for quality articles around church music, such as Amzi Chapin, Messa (Puccini), William Henry Havergal, for images and redirects, for pruning and adding, for the illustration of your user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1700 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Thanks - now do the same job for poor Mrs Massingberd. Eddaido (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Loudon McAdam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Lucien Boyer (humourist), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giles Harrison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Flapdragon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Corou de Berra".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Flapdragon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lucien Boyer".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Crwth-player.jpg, which you've attributed to Gwybodiadur.co.uk. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((permission pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]