User talk:Headhitter

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Your GA nomination of Gwyneth Herbert

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gwyneth Herbert you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Winner 42 -- Winner 42 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Gwyneth Herbert

The article Gwyneth Herbert you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gwyneth Herbert for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Winner 42 -- Winner 42 (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Gwyneth Herbert

The article Gwyneth Herbert you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gwyneth Herbert for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Winner 42 -- Winner 42 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gwyneth Herbert

On 2 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gwyneth Herbert, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the jazz singer-songwriter Gwyneth Herbert co-wrote a musical about the woman who created the London A to Z street atlas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gwyneth Herbert. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naim Dangoor

Great work on Naim Dangoor. I've started an article on his grandfather, Ezra Dangoor, that I'd like to try to expand a bit more for DYK. Perhaps you might be interested in helping - for a co-credit of course! Edwardx (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Cemetery

Thanks for your help there. If you're nearby, perhaps you could pop in and take some photos (if it ever stops raining!). I was there earlier in December, but was in a rush and it was the cenotaph I was mainly interested in. I've been researching Lutyens' war memorials with a view to writing some articles, and it was only later that I realised that the cemetery was so interesting and that it didn't already have an article. I'll hopefully get round to some of the red links, especially the cenotaph, in the next few days. Oh, and happy new year! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Richmond Cemetery was long overdue, HJ Mitchell: well done for creating and developing it. The cenotaph is fascinating and deserves to be better known. I've already taken some pictures of the cenotaph and can upload them if there aren't any already on Wikimedia Commons. Do you plan to do an article on East Sheen Cemetery too? Best wishes for a happy and healthy 2016. Headhitter (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got photos of the cenotaph, do upload them; there are a few on Commons already at c:Category:South African Memorial, Richmond, including the handful I took while I was there, but it never hurts to have more. I probably will put something together on East Sheen Cemetery, even if for no other reason than I don't like red links! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Sheen Cemetery is now blue. See what you think. Not a bad way to spend a quiet bank holiday. I noticed the Lancaster memorial as I walked through, but didn't realise just how significant it was. I used your photo of it, though. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, Harry: your article on East Sheen Cemetery reads extremely well. Thanks for using my picture of the Lancaster memorial; it's not at all easy to photograph. I also have a picture of Roy Kinnear's grave, which I'll add after I've uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're going great guns with East Sheen Cemetery, Harry: well done! When you have time to return to your original area of interest – Richmond Cemetery – you'll find that I've uploaded several new images in Wikimedia Commons. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's refreshing to leave all the admin stuff behind and just write something! Much as I like blocking vandals and chasing loonies around the place, it gets tedious and it's not nearly as stimulating, so while I've got a little bit of time on my hands I'll take the chance to actually add something to the encyclopaedia. I've got a couple of books in the post, but until they arrive I think I've got about as far as I can on the two cemeteries. I might look at filling in some of the red links. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but there's a Wikipedia meetup in London (at the Penderel's Oak on High Holborn) on Sunday. I happen to be on London this weekend anyway so I'll be there; if you fancied coming along I'd buy you a pint (or a coffee or whatever). Details are at m:Meetup/London/101. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite: I'll try to come along. Headhitter (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Sheen Cemetery has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Headhitter. East Sheen Cemetery, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 21:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Cemetery has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Headhitter. Richmond Cemetery, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 22:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for East Sheen Cemetery

On 19 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article East Sheen Cemetery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "one of the most significant 20th-century examples of funerary sculpture" (pictured) can be found in East Sheen Cemetery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/East Sheen Cemetery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Richmond Cemetery

On 27 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richmond Cemetery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an unusual number of recipients of the Victoria Cross, Britain's highest military honour for gallantry, are buried in Richmond Cemetery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richmond Cemetery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox Inn, Hanwell

Can I take it that you have visited the Fox? Good watering hole and the article very much needed your input. I have contributed to this article in the past but sometimes a fresh pair of eyes are needed to see the faux pas. No pun intended (well maybe a little bit). Oh gosh, I feel embarrassed not to make some of those corrections myself.--Aspro (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aspro. Yes, I have occasionally been to the Fox when I've been on a cycle ride along the canal. I first went there 40 years ago when a friend of mine then lived nearby and it was his local: thankfully, it doesn't seem to have changed much! Headhitter (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Steele at Montrose House

Not sure why you removed my update to Petersham saying that Tommy Steele lived there when this is already on the page for Montrose House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reesmf (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reesmf, you didn't include a citation on the Petersham page. Headhitter (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Leonard's Court

On 1 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St Leonard's Court, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that St Leonard's Court in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames has a Grade II listed underground air-raid shelter (entrance pictured) built in the 1930s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St Leonard's Court. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, St Leonard's Court), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twickenham Fine Ales

Hi Headhitter. Currently expanding this article on my User:Aspro/sandbox/Twickenham Fine Ales. Just started it on the 12 of this month but already find myself asking on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Bot_controller_on_Wiki-break to slow down the bots. Err... in the mean time, do you know anything about Twickenham's F.A. that I can add to the article?--Aspro (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No more than what I've already included I'm afraid, Aspro (talk). Well done for attempting to expand it! Headhitter (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

I have reverted your move of the film Look Both Ways to Look Both Ways (film); there is nothing to suggest that a 2017 album takes precedence over an award-winning film, and if the article was to be moved there are a huge number of incoming links which would need to be updated. If you think that the film really should be moved, please use the formal Request Move process so that this not-uncontroversial move can be properly discussed. Thanks. PamD 08:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PamD. I'd forgotten about the hatnote option. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Naim Edge for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Hi, Great work on the listing of UK synagogues. Just wanted to ask if you could attribute Jewish Small Communities Network jscn.org.uk when using any information found on our website, or links to pages on our website. Much appreciated 212.159.78.58 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)ED[reply]

Will do: thanks. The Jewish Small Communities Network is an impressive and very useful resource and if you look at the references section towards the end of List of Jewish communities in the United Kingdom article you'll see that I've now added some references that cite jscn.org.uk. Headhitter (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Look Both Ways album cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Look Both Ways album cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Harry Leslie Smith

On 28 November 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harry Leslie Smith, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 22:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Lit WikiProject

Hi. I'm Barkeep49 and I am working to re-establish the Children's literature WikiProejct as an active project. It seems like you might be interested in (re)joining. If so I would encourage you to add your name back to the active members list. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a talk page message or ping me here. Otherwise I hope to see you around the project. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve List of cemeteries, crematoria and memorials in Richmond upon Thames

Hello, Headhitter,

Thanks for creating List of cemeteries, crematoria and memorials in Richmond upon Thames! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for two issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn. I've now expanded the article considerably and have addressed the issues that had been tagged. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Layla Moran talk page

There is a rather spirited discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Layla Moran#Domestic Violence. Seeing as you are an experienced editor that recently edited the page, I would appreciate if you could chime in with your view, in the interests of finding a consensus one way or the other. Domeditrix (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Group

Your article on The Independent Group: worth mentioning their tax base is in Panama and that they have registered as a private company, not a political party, thereby avoiding Parliamentary regulations on disclosure of donations to a political party.

Reported by Nye Bevan News — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaggeringIneptitude (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:StaggeringIneptitude, it's not my article. The article's talk page is the proper place for such comments and you could always edit the article yourself. Headhitter (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Hi, thanks for your work. Please note that on en.WP we don't link common "dictionary" terms unless there's a very good reason ... like "piano", "musician", "singer", "United States", "house", etc. See MOS:OVERLINK. Tony (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New article on John Vincent MBE

Would you be interested in collaborating to publish an article on LEON Restaurants co-founder and CEO John Vincent? He has done a lot in public life in addition to founding LEON: he is also known for his work in developing The School Food plan, for which he received an MBE; chairing the Council for Sustainable Business; co-authoring seven cookbooks; and he is currently co-authoring a book titled ‘Winning Not Fighting' with Wing Tsun martial arts master Julian Hitch, due to be published in November 2019 by Penguin. I've noticed that there isn't yet an article on John but I've just started working for LEON so would appreciate your help to ensure that the article is independent and neutral. I've already written the relevant content and have the references. You'd obviously be able to add or takeaway content as you think is appropriate. Let me know! Engeledits (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Engeledits (talk). I'm happy to take a look when you're ready. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The existing draft article can be found under Draft:John Vincent. Feel free to make any edits and then to publish it when you're satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engeledits (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now publishd the article, Engeledits (talk). Well done for all the work you've done on it. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Headhitter. It has been great collaborating with you. Engeledits (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Hitch

Hi Headhitter, I saw you recently published a page about John Vincent. I wondered if you might be interested in helping me publish a profile for the co-author of Winning Not Fighting, Julian Hitch?

UPDATE: I have now written the Julian Hitch draft and submitted it for review. I'd be so grateful if you read it and made any necessary edits or improvements to get it published? I have included as many citations as I could find. Kindest thanks, Abitlo (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Abitlo (talk). I'd love to help but I'm afraid I'm currently far too busy. I suggest though that you might want to expand the article to include some personal information about Hitch – e.g when and where he was born, where he was educated and so on. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headhitter, thanks for getting back to me. Such a shame you are too busy but thank you for letting me know. PS thanks for flagging - somehow the 'Early Life' info I added was deleted! I have put it back in. Thank you! Any other tips on helping get it published are appreciated :) Have a great evening Abitlo (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Willesden Jewish Cemetery

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Willesden Jewish Cemetery you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Willesden Jewish Cemetery

The article Willesden Jewish Cemetery you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Willesden Jewish Cemetery for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mallord Street

Thank you for your edits. Do you know when it was renumbered and what is the current number of the 'Little House', number 10, in 1940s. I also noticed some sculpture on number 30. AndyScott (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, AndyScott(talk), I don't. I'll have to pay the street a visit some time to investigate. BTW I enjoyed reading your article on Kew Mortuary and I wondered if you knew of the existence of the Richmond Local History Society, which covers Richmond, Petersham and Ham, as well as Kew, and publishes an annual journal. I know the society would be interested in considering an article from you (which could of course then be cited in Wikipedia!) Headhitter (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am a member. There are still things about the Kew Mortuary that I don't know, starting with when it was built, so the article isn't really finished although it was fascinating finding out about the related local history. My interest in Mallord Street was with John Francis Kavanagh and I am not sure that number 10 today is his house, so again that is unfinished.

AndyScott (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AndyScott (talk). I've added a University of Glasgow ref to the Mallord Street article, giving no 10 as Kavanagh's address in the 1940s. Is it likely that the numbering would have changed since then? Glad to hear that you belong to the Richmond Local History Society. Do please consider submitting something to its journal (which I happen to edit) if there's something you're working on that you would like to see published in print. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival

The article Warsaw Jewish Film Festival has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

revision to Barnes

Hi Headhitter: Thanks for your kind note back about my small revision to the Barnes article. I just thought the wording should be consistent. I envy you living in London. Although I live in America, I think London is the greatest city in the world and have visited many times beginning when I was a kid in the 1960s. Never been to Barnes though, so maybe next visit ... thanks again. Scribley (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elettra

Thank you for tidying up my article about Elettra, Marconi's steam yacht. Oh dear! The link above is not correct but if you read further you will see that this is the point of my request for help. I looked at the article on Marconi and noticed that there was no link from there to this new article about his steam yacht. Could you pse look at the Marconi article: you will see that I've tried to create a wikilink but unfortunately my attempt takes the reader to ELETTRA and not the steam yacht in question. I think there is a way of hiding part of the name of the article to which the link goes. Alas I have forgotten how to do this - could you pse take a look and do the necessary? Thanks in advance. Mikeo1938 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikeo1938, I've made the change you requested, using a pipe (|), as in [Wikipedia article name|text to appear on page]. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to William Henry Crossland have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 12:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paper9oll, I think you must have deleted my edits in error: I've reinstated them. Headhitter (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Headhitter: Hi sorry about that if it was my mistake, as I see [1] you change the reference style from using {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) to considered bare reference styling which is why I undo it. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 13:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Oliver_Twist into Eliza Davis (letter writer). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me, Diannaa (talk). I've now amended the Talk page for Eliza Davis (letter writer) accordingly. If you would kindly take the trouble to review my edit please, and let me know whether I've done that correctly, I'll follow up with a corresponding edit on the Oliver Twist page later today. Best wishes. Headhitter (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template is good. But the template is optional; the edit summary is that part that's mandatory. Thanks.— Diannaa (talk)

Thanks for your help and for getting back to me so promptly, Diannaa (talk). Presumably an edit summary can't be reworded retrospectively, but I'll make sure to remember for next time! Headhitter (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can add the edit summary in a subsequent edit if you forget. :) — Diannaa (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution Script

Hi, I have been checking some typos and found your edit from 27 November 2020, which says "mith assumes the reader knows the details of the October crisis". That looks like a fragment, please could you have a look? I have "corrected" mith to Smith, but I think the fragment should be explained or removed. TSventon (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, TSventon (talk), and thank you for alerting me. I've deleted the "fragment" – much of it is repeated in the paragraph that follows and "Smith" relates to a completely different book by a different author in the same Maclean's review by Donald Cameron. Headhitter (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive sources

The best solution for local news sources (which have an alarming tendency to rot / deteriorate after 5 years or so) is to run the IA Bot. It takes a few minutes and analyses all dead links, giving them Wayback machine links. It's particularly important for more recent facts over the last 10-20 years, where authoritative book sources haven't caught up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamm quote on Céline

Hello there,

Thanks for correcting my edits to your edits. My concern is that hundreds of journalists have views on Céline as a writer and as a person and I don't see why this particular one should be included. I think the article already presents a pretty balanced view of the controversy over Céline the anti-Semite and Céline the novelist. The Kamm quote (and article) is a fringe view that doesn't add much to the debate or the article. It can be easily countered with quotes from much more distinguished writers who regard Céline as one of the major novelists of the last century who can't be ignored and won't be forgotten. But there is little point in engaging in a battle of quote against quote - it won't improve the article. And adding that Kamm also writes for The Times doesn't make his quote any more noteworthy. Should we list the full CV of those pundits who regard Céline as a great writer? --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Aemilius Adolphin (talk), but please WP:AGF when commenting on fellow Wikipedia editors' efforts. Headhitter (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akroydon

Thank you for your interest in the monument at Akroydon. I have just found that the statue of Victoria was intended to be by John Birnie Philip (d.1875), the sculptor who worked for George Gilbert Scott. I have added that information, and a few other bits, to the section on the William Swinden Barber#Victoria Cross at Akroydon, 1875 article. I hope that may be of interest. I suspect that the general architectural carving on the same monument may be by the Mawer Group. Also, if you have been to the square you will have seen the small panels of sandstone undercut carved leaves on some of the houses. I'm not sure exactly when they were built, but the leaves are in the fine style of William Ingle, who died in 1870. Philip could have done it I suppose, but that job may have been below him. Storye book (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making backups

FYI. I'm hoping that the Collier page will survive deletion. But just a FYI, I've been making daily backups of the page in case it ends up getting deleted. And all of your work won't be lost.

-Adam

That's good to hear: well done! Headhitter (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it

I'm hitting my head right now. I had nearly started when I saw it was done hours ago. Well done at the creation of Martin Kimani's article and every other article you've done. Thumbs up. Danidamiobi (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Danidamiobi. 15:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Headhitter (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improving and adding to the Giving Circle Wikipedia article

Hello Headhitter I noticed you also contributed quite a bit to the Giving circle Wikipedia article. I made some conceptual updates to the article in my sandbox to address the flag and some problems I see from other editors. I have not added new content yet; I just added a proposed outline with the existing content and removed some promotional parts such as a URL in the body of the article and content added by COI editors.(I deduced they were COI from their edits and the location of their IP address or username. Would you be open to taking a look at the sandbox? I do have a COI with Philanthropy Together, an organization advocating for giving circles, so I will not directly edit the article.--Chefmikesf (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this, Chefmikesf (talk). I like your proposed outline and I think it could be a good way forward. However, please note that Wikipedia's style (WP:MOS) follows British and continental European newspaper style in using lower case for headings (after the initial caps). So under "Example" for instance, the headings should read "Broad audience" and "Faith-based" and so on. When there's a reference, the style adopted in the source should be used, so Andrew Bibby's Observer piece (currently ref 4) should read "Squaring the charity circle" (lower case for "charity" and circle") whereas the previous ref (ref 3) by Dan Kadlec, which reads "Report: Giving Circle" (initial caps throughout) is fine because that's in the source (which uses American headings style). Also, you've used "Pre-History" as a heading but if you look up "Prehistory" on Wikipedia you'll see that it means "the time before recorded human history" which I don't think is what you meant. I'm not happy with the current published version of the Wikipedia entry and, although I've made lots of edits, most of the content hasn't come from me. My main concern is that despite my efforts, it is still very American-centric, which Wikipedia, as a worldwide encyclopaedia, strives not to be. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Headhitter. All of your suggestions make sense, and I've changed the sandbox to reflect the proper capitalization of the headings. NOTE: I've only made minor edits to the existing content in the sandbox where the content blatantly violated policy.

I agree the article is primarily U.S.-focused, and the article needs broader coverage of the topic. Concurrently, I am conducting extensive research on the global giving circle movement and hope to add to the sandbox in the next few months.

Would you be open to a continuous improvement approach to the article? Would you be open to publishing the new outline now; then reviewing, discussing, and adding the new proposed content when it's ready? If so, can you publish the suggested outline of the article due to my COI? Chefmikesf (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chefmikesf (talk): To be honest, I'd much rather you found someone else to post the revised content for you. Although I've made several edits to the published article, most of them were several years ago and I've now moved on to other WP areas of interest. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Headhitter; I appreciate all your feedback on the outline thus far!--Chefmikesf (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headhitter; I hope all is well with you. I noticed you made some edits to the Giving circle article. I collaborated with some others on a proposed sandbox and we formatted the changes on the article talk page. Would you be open at this point to review and complete a one or more sections of the edit requests? Best --Chefmikesf (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Bruce Kent

On 15 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bruce Kent, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miloon Kothari

Hi,

I explained in the TP why I think mentioning the word "anti-Semitism" in the paragraph is in my opinion problematic, which is why I reverted to my version. If you do not agree, I suggest that we discuss it in the article's TP. Cheers, Kimdome (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knaresborough railway station

Hi, thanks for your edits to this page. However, there was a discussion at WP:UKRAIL not too long ago that 'stationmasters' sections should be removed (mostly per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, I think). I don't see you dabble in railway articles too much, though, be nice to see you around more if that was something which interests you? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Headhitter!

Happy New Year!

Headhitter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Britain Olympic football team" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Great Britain Olympic football team has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13 § Great Britain Olympic football team until a consensus is reached. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto translators

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_24#Esperanto_translators. – Fayenatic London 11:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Modern Poetry in Translation, no 3 2017.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Modern Poetry in Translation, no 3 2017.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing citations

Editors cite to a specific editions. Content and page numbers may vary in newer editions. Being out-of-print is not a reason to change a reference. Sources are verifiable from library copies. It's generally bad form to do in the first place, and especially if you are omitting authors and changing the citation style, which you are not supposed to do. Just stop. Skyerise (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have all four printed editions; the cited text re Dee is exactly the same in each. I've reinstated the newest edition - but now in the preferred citation style - because it is available in both libraries and bookshops and can easily be consulted. The old edition is not widely accessible. The Richmond Local History Society took the decision to credit the authorship to "Members of the Richmond Local History Society" as so many contributors - over and above the original three authors - had contributed, 30 years since the book was first published. Headhitter (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September/ October 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skyerise (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise (talk), I don't intend to engage in an edit war (I didn't start the reverting) and I really have much better things to do with my time. Rather then escalating this issue you should be assuming good faith on my part - WP:GOODFAITH: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." I supplied information (see the section immediately above on this Talk page) that I thought might be helpful to improving the article and I took on board your comments - thank you - about the need to comply with the article's citation style. Headhitter (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise (talk): Do you intend to contest User:GrindtXX's reversion on 24 September of your edit on John Dee? If not, then I hope you will have the good grace to apologise for, and withdraw, your accusation (above in this thread) that I was edit warring. Headhitter (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was properly placed; your first edit was a partial revert, because it removed a source which I had added; then you reverted twice more. That meets the requirement for a warning. Not a single editor who has tagged me after I made only two reverts has ever apologized. I waited until there were actually 3 reverts, which is grounds for placing the tag. What makes you special that I don't get to call edit warring as I see it? There will be no apology, you were about to go over the line and I didn't want to have to report you for it. That's it. Please don't post on my talk page again. Skyerise (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise (talk): I don't claim to be special, but your tag was far from being properly placed and was intimidating, as is your response above. I expect fellow editors to assume WP:FAITH and to abide by WP:CIVIL. I urge you to review and reconsider your comments. Headhitter (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The tag was properly placed. See Bold, Revert, Discuss. If you've made a change and you are reverted, you are supposed to start a discussion on the talk page, not revert twice more, not give your reasons in an edit summary, but actually post your reasoning on the talk page. It was you who did not assume good faith by reverting twice more rather than discussing. Skyerise (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You do know you are allowed to remove the warning, right? Skyerise (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise (talk): Your account of the reversions, all of them on 24 September, is incorrect. Here's what actually happened:

My first edit, at 13:30, was an updating, not a reversion, of your original citation.

You then made a reversion of my edit - your first reversion - at 13:49.

I made my first reversion at 14:14, and gave an explanation in the edit summary of why I had done so: "The book originally cited is out of print: I cited an ::::updated edition (which doesn't include the original authors' names) of the same book".

You then made your second reversion at 14:16, saying in your edit summary: "the original citation does include the author's names; being out of print is not a reason to replace it; your citation is incomplete and doesn't observe WP:CITEVAR".

At this point, I had made only one reversion but you had made two. By your own account, "If you've made a change and you are reverted, you are supposed to start a discussion on the talk page, not revert twice more, not give your reasons in an edit summary, but actually post your reasoning on the talk page." However, you chose not to do that and I chose not to give you a warning about your edit warring, but I would have been perfectly within my rights to do so. Instead, I made my second reversion at 14:29, this time being sure to observe WP:CITEVAR.

You then made your third reversion, at 14:31, saying in the edit summary: "Now you are edit warring". This was despite the fact that I had made only two reversions and you had made three! You say, at 11:52 on 2 October 2023, above "I waited until there were actually 3 reverts, which is grounds for placing the tag". But the three consecutive reverts were yours, not mine. You had simply jumped the gun, without following your own advice to start a discussion on the article's talk page. I suggest you look at WP:ROWN to understand why I think you were out of order, not me. WP:ROWN says: "Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration... For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse... Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation. Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing." You didn't follow that advice at all.

The next reversion, at 18:26, was by GrindtXX whose edit summary said: "The only edit-warring I see comes from Skyerise. The old reference which you are insisting on reinserting is inadequate because it lacks a page number. The new reference inserted by Headhitter is more up to date, in print, and includes a page number."

That's why I asked you, above at 19:47 on 29 September, whether you were going to challenge User:GrindtXXX's view about which of us was actually edit-warring. Four days have elapsed and you haven't chosen to do so. Instead you have attempted (your response at 11:52 on 3 October) once again to intimidate me. Yes, of course I can take the Edit warring template down but I think it is you who should be doing that as you didn't have sufficient grounds to post it in the first place. Headhitter (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise (talk): You said, in your most recent edit summary, that you couldn't remove the edit warning as it has been replied to. However, you can strikethrough the text. Headhitter (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Headhitter!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your edit

your edit has been undone @Headhitter 2001:818:D921:A200:C523:9FD:AA53:885A (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained why you reverted it. The existing text is grammatically incorrect. 12:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Headhitter (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

It'd be kind if one provides a rationale in their edit summary when reverting an edit.

As provided in my initial edit summary, a simple statement stating X leaders sent congratulations is sufficient. There is no need to go into that excess amount of detail about what was said (we don't even go into that amount of detail for quotable items in other sections of the article), especially when one considers how large the section can grow if we did. With that in mind, and considering the page's prose count is already nearly 10k words in size, one would consider that we aim for brevity in writing, ala WP:SIZERULE. Also, you'd think providing such detail instead of opting for a summary would go against the spirit of WP:NOTEVERYTHING... but I'd like to hear your thoughts on my last edit and why you reverted it. Leventio (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Leventio (talk), I intended to leave an edit summary: my apologies for not doing so. Your edit introduced an inaccuracy: India is a member of the Commonwealth. Best wishes. Headhitter (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then one could have edited the header instead of reverting the entire edit no? I've restored the initital edit minus the header change. Leventio (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i need help

article: draft:Macro social work

please expand the article

please find good sources for the article

please fix any grammar spelling issues with the article

-thank you RJJ4y7 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of almshouses in the United Kingdom

added links pointing to Launceston, Lingfield, St Germans and Morval

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of almshouses in the United Kingdom

added links pointing to Olney, Ravenstone, Brill and Clapton

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm GDX420. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hi Headhitter I noticed that you removed this The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/25/children-at-rnib-schools-and-homes-put-at-risk-charity-regulator-finds

from Royal National Institute of Blind People entry. The source relates to a sexually abusive practice inflicted upon blind autistic children in this charity's care. It covers the charities failing in-depth, with editorial oversight and quality journalism. Therefore, I believe removing it diminishes Wikipedia's overall quality and undermines the purpose of this encyclopaedia. Please do not remove reliable press coverage of the charities failings from the article again. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 20:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GDX420, Please see my comment just now on the Royal National Institute of Blind People's Talk page. Headhitter (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding potentially copyrighted material to RNIB

Just incase you didn't see my note on the talk page can you please excercise caution when adding potentially copyrighted material to Royal National Institute of Blind People?

this edit and this edit closely paraphrase the organisation's about us page.

Your recent edit to the article's lead reads;

"RNIB (formally, The Royal National Institute of Blind People and previously The Royal National Institute for the Blind) is the leading charity in the United Kingdom for people who have vision loss.^[1] It is a registered charity that offers practical and emotional support to blind and partially sighted people, their families and carers.^[2] It also raises awareness of the experiences of blind and partially sighted people and campaigns for change to make UK society more accessible for people with sight loss.^[3]"

^ "Blindness and vision loss". NHS. Retrieved 18 September 2024.
^ "Blindness and vision loss". NHS. Newcastle City Council Adult Social Care and Prevention. Retrieved 18 September 2024.
^ "About us". RNIB. Retrieved 12 August 2024.

and the organisation's about us page reads,

"RNIB, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, is the UK's leading sight loss charity. We offer practical and emotional support to blind and partially sighted people, their families and carers. We raise awareness of the experiences of blind and partially sighted people and campaign for change to make our society more accessible for all. We want to change our world so there are no barriers to people with sight loss."

Can you see how this might be a problm?

Do you mind removing the potential copyright infringement from the article's lead, please? Thanks you.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and the organisation's about us page reads,

"RNIB, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, is the UK's leading sight loss charity. We offer practical and emotional support to blind and partially sighted people, their families and carers. We raise awareness of the experiences of blind and partially sighted people and campaign for change to make our society more accessible for all. We want to change our world so there are no barriers to people with sight loss."

Thank you, User:GDX420. Noted and now actioned. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

an open source educational resource

i reacently found a website (started by a social worker academic) which is a database of freely available, open source social work textbooks on every course a social worker would need to take from entry all the way to an advnced practice degree. will be useful for building Wikipedia articles. also please spread the word if any social workers you know would benefit. URL: https://opensocialwork.org/textbooks/ RJJ4y7 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about inappropriate rollback usage

You have used rollback infrequently, but many of your recent uses of rollback (including the last three non-self-reverting uses of rollback: Special:Diff/1246387775, Special:Diff/1236373637, and Special:Diff/1223154951) are not an appropriate use of rollback as described at WP:ROLLBACKUSE. When you are reverting other editors who are editing in good faith, an edit summary explaining the reason for the revert is expected, especially for editors with the rollback user right. Please discontinue using rollback in situations where such usage is not appropriate and where edit summaries are expected to avoid having the rollback user right revoked per WP:ROLLBACKREVOKE. Please also take the time to read Wikipedia:Rollback before using rollback further. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh (talk) Thank you for alerting me: I'll aim to improve my WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Headhitter! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[0-1] "Blindness and vision loss". NHS. Retrieved 18 September 2024.

[1-2] "Blindness and vision loss". NHS. Newcastle City Council Adult Social Care and Prevention. Retrieved 18 September 2024.

[About-3] "About us". RNIB. Retrieved 12 August 2024.

[1]

[3]