User talk:Risteárd

Welcome!

Hello, Risteárd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 22:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Co-operative Group

Hi, I've moved the article Co-operative Group back to The Co-operative Group as this is the name that the Society defines itself by. If you wish to take a look at their website at co-op.co.uk you will be able to see examples for yourself. --R.carroll 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've had a look at that. My main gripe was that the name as is, is a bit of a nonsense name. The definite article should only define (to begin a sentence, or something), not become part of a name (maybe The Times is one exception). I guess it's unavoidable, really. Another reason was to reduce the number of 'significant' words needed to reach the article - to make it easier to find. (RM21 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Evening. I've re-edited the start of the Co-operative Group article to reflect the correct legal position. The company is registered as Co-operative Group (CWS) Limited and you can see this used in the small print of the latest annual report (for example in the auditors report). the Co-operative Group (unfortunately lower case!) is the trading name of the group.

Regards Nigel45 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, hopefully that'll be OK until the next re-organization ! Nigel45 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield

Re your post on Talk:Huddersfield.

- That User No is a proxy number, so it could be any of many users with the same number. I've just redone the page top layout a different way. Is that more suitable? Richard Harvey 05:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holmfirth Article

Hi, Many apologies for not replying before now. I've been offline for quite a while as I was involved in setting up a website for an organisation, before going overseas for a while.

Glad you liked the image, I've also put one up for Meltham, and will be looking to do some more for other area's. If you have any in particular that you think would be of use just drop me a message. Richard Harvey 16:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Bits

Hi, Just to let you know I have uploaded a photo of Netherton & South Crosland to the Netherton article and also started a new article for Longroyd Bridge again including a photo. I've also done a bit of a copyedit to the Milnsbridge article. Though I think they need more adding than I can do, images are my forte, could you take a look please and do whats required? Richard Harvey 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the kind comments re the Longroyd Bridge Photo. Yes it was taken from the viaduct as I passed over it on the train, I put that info on the main His-res image entry Here:- [[1]]. I hope to be able to get further unusual shots for the other areas as time goes on. I've plenty of old ones in my collection, but they are a bit too old to use. I've just put a photo of the Brockholes train station on here:- Brockholes_railway_station and Brockholes also a photo of Berry Brow station to Berry_Brow_railway_station and one of Honley to it's article. Richard Harvey 23:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More new bits

Just added some images to Huddersfield railway station, Huddersfield, Lockwood railway station, Lockwood, Paddock, Huddersfield and started an article for Beaumont Park with a photo as well. So if you have any extra's to add ??? Richard Harvey 18:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

Since you are interested in flags and emblems I would like to inform you that the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology has just been created. Why not take a look? I hope you can join.Inge 20:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blazon Standard

Thanks for looking into the proposed blazon standard. It's good to know that the wikipedia might be in line with some folks that know a lot more about heraldry that I do. --dave-- 03:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS-I spent a few days in York during my college years studying the dialect (also spent days in Cardiff, London and Edinburgh), so I'm glad to see that you're proud of it.

Image tagging for Image:Coat of arms of Wakefield (city).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of arms of Wakefield (city).jpg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Jackson

Hi! I was just wondering if the information about Ashley Jackson would be better off on the Holmfirth article, rather than the Huddersfield one, Especially as how his gallery is up towards the Ford Inn on Greenfield Road, and closer to Upperthong than it is to Holmfirth? Richard Harvey 10:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something similar when I saw that it had been added to the Huddersfield article. However, are you thinking of Trevor Stubley's gallery going towards the Ford Inn? Jackson lives in Netherthong and his gallery is at Upper Bridge, Holmfirth. R.carroll 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! I keep getting them muddled, yet my gran used to live just a bit further up New Road than he does. Would you like to move it across, and add Trevor Stubley on whilst your at it? I'm about to dissapear for a day or two. Richard Harvey 05:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've moved the information. I've introduced an Arts section to Holmfirth. However, it's a little ropey and could do with more information. Can you help in anyway? Richard ^{( T | C )} 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Requests

Replied on my Talk Page. Richard Harvey 12:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial images done for:- Upperthong and Wooldale :) Richard Harvey 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holmfirth Flood

Hi! I don't know if you have spotted the new article that has been created. Personally I think its not required and that the additional info would have been better used to expand the section on the flooding in the Holmfirth article. To which effect I have put a message on the article Talk Page. Would you care to take a look and see what you think? Richard Harvey 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard!

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've taken a look at the flood article and I think it shows the foundations of a good article. I'm sure that further information could be added (I have a book on the floods myself - I'll have re-jog my memory) and if left in the Holmfirth article, it could start to take over. I'll try to add some further information shortly.

Richard ^{( T | C )} 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meltham House

Hi. I noticed your reference to Meltham House near Jackson Bridge in a question you had regarding one of Richard Harvey's photographs. Does Melthamhouse still exist as an entity? Abel Shore, a woollen weaver lived there with his family according to the 1841 Census. I am trying to pin down where it is - is it on Meltham House Lane?

Ted Shore —The preceding signed comment was added by H E Shore (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Ted. I would consider Meltham House to be located at the southern end of Meltham House Lane as you suggest. This is where a farm, which I believe to be called Meltham House Farm, is located. What do you mean in terms of "entity"? Yes, undoubtedly it is still there in a collection of the five or so houses and farm.

The grid reference for the area is SE 168 076. The satellite image from Google maps is [2].

I hope this helps. Richard ^{( T | C )} 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard. By "entity", I meant some legal status, but given its size, it appears to be simply a farm with 4 or 5 houses on it. Next in the Census was Holling house which also appears to be a similar hamlet, made up of 4 households. Would you consider Meltham house to be on "Tenter Hill"? If you are ever up there, I'd very much love a photograph of the hamlet. Some day I'll visit. Do you know the name of the watercourse in Jackson Bridge? I believe this flows into River Holme, but I cannot find its name.H E Shore 16:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Ted. I now understand what you mean. I think it has no official status and it is not well known. I would assume most people simply refer to it being part of Jackson Bridge.

In my opinion, and that is all it is, I would not consider Meltham House to be on any particular road. I see settlements as embracing a number of roads and defining them as being on one road would be more akin to providing an address. However, in terms of such a small settlement as Meltham House, I would agree in that predominately it does lie alongside Tenter Hill.

I usually go for my what-should-be-daily jog through Meltham House so if it's a fine day I'll certain try to take a photo or two for you. Watch this space!

As for the watercourse in Jackson Bridge, I'm afraid I really don't know. I think further down it's called New Mill Dyke (or is it Dike?) but this could be downstream from the Jackson Bridge and Sude Hill tributaries.

I've messaged a fellow Wikipedian, Richard Harvey to see if he can help further. He also lives in the local area.

Richard ^{( T | C )} 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard!, I just got your message. I would agree that Meltham House from what I recall, when I lived up Butterly, fronts onto Tenter Hill, just below Meltham House Road. I think No2 Meltham House is now a Guesthouse. As for the watercourse at Jackson Bridge, It does become 'New Mill Dike' but not until after it has passed under the bridge at Lydgate, alongside 'Sinking Wood'. I can't recall it having a name. But I do remember, as a young lad, that it was a place to keep clear of and not even fishable as far down as Mearhouse. The source though stems from two main parts, one of which is Boshow Whams Reservoir on the Strines Moor, which feeds down through Morton Wood into the Mill Dams at the back of Dobroyd Mill. I used to sneak a walk up to them, to get the clatter of the weaving shed out of my young head. The other main feed comes from the hillside around above Hepworth towards OX Lee and the old mining shafts run offs around Cripple Hole, which is why the water often has the Oxide colouring as it passes through Jackson Bridge. I don't have any images of Meltham House Farm, as it is a bit low in the trees to see from my usual vantage point at the top of Tenter Hill. Richard Harvey 00:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hi! With regard to your recent enquiry about the name of the river at Jackson Bridge. I have just come across some older archived maps that shows the name of 'Rakes Dike' to the section of river between Dobroyd Mill and Rakes Wood, and 'Dean Dike' to the waterway going up through Morton Wood and 'New Mill Dike' printed along the length of the river between Wildspur Mill and Bower and Roebuck's. An Additional (Crown Copyright) map shows the name of 'Jackson Bridge Dike' printed between Dobroyd Mill and Wildspur Mill. Richard Harvey 09:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are still running past Meltham House, but if you are out that way, I'd love to see some shots of it - all I have until I get there is Google Earth air shot. Does Jon Rust still run a B+B there? H E Shore 02:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found Oxlee, which appears to have been abandoned. I cannot find any reference to Cipple Hole (other than being a drystone wall opening). Where and what is Cripple Hole? Are any of the mines still in operation? H E Shore (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo's

Hi Richard! Just a heads up to let you know I have finally managed to get a better image of Upperthong which I have added to the article, along with a shot of St Johns Church and grounds. Both taken from the bridleway across the other side of the valley on Dunsley Bank. Plus a better coverage angle shot of Holme from Ramsden Lane, near Crow Hill on Moss Edge, and one across Holmfirth, from Dunsley Bank, towards Castle Hill. Richard Harvey 09:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard!

I've looked at your new photos and very nice they are too. I particular like the one of Upperthong church but - and I mean no kind of criticism here - don't you think it looks a bit like a model village? Perhaps how perfect Holmfirth is!! The view from Dunsley towards Holmfirth is a perspective I've not really seen before and it took a while to work the landmarks (including, alas, the Co-op!) out. It's a very good photo though.

Richard ^{( T | C )} 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the kind comments! I fully agree about the model village effect, I assume you did the double clicking and magnifying glass routine, to open the image up to its full size! When I first looked at it I had to check it was the right one as I had half a vision of a man trapped in a white bubble floating up the hill and a secondary thought of Tic-Tac boxes. It shows the alarming effect of how builders try to cram in as many buildings as possible into a field, probably more than there were cattle in it originally! :) Richard Harvey 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldham categories at Cfd

The question of whether 'Oldham' cats should be renamed to 'Metropoloitan Borough of Oldham' has been taken to CfD, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. As far as I can tell, this renaming proposal would apply to Wigan, Stockport and all other metropolitan boroughs - UK-wide - that share a name with a town. Your contributions would be welcome. Mr Stephen 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant!

Brilliant work on Huddersfield's divisions and suburbs! Thanks ever so much for your hard work. Jza84 14:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Smile.co.uk logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Smile.co.uk logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Coat of arms of the City of Sydney (new).gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of arms of the City of Sydney (new).gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Huddersfield-coa.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Huddersfield-coa.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. Happy New Year! I noticed that this image fair use requirement was also published on the Huddersfield Talk page. There will be no need for you to do anything now as I have corrected the licensing you placed on the image and also updated the summary and added a category for the image. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard. I don't really understand all the image licensing thing! Happy New Year to you too.

Richard ^{( T | C )} 16:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-op UK

Hi Richard. Really good start on amending the Co-op UK article - I've changed the tags on it to reflect the work you've done, and will pitch in to help as soon as I've got a chance. Might be worth getting the Cooperatives project team on the case, and looking at the Co-operatives UK website for some general facts and figures about the position of the UK movement. Cheers for the great work. JonStrines (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Richard. Can't agree more - I was thinking much the same myself. I'm a bit time-strapped at the moment, so I don't know how quickly I'm going to get the Brand article finished, but I think in a supermarket sense, Co-op UK should really be a page that explains about the CRTG and the brand and its use by the 30 or so independent co-operatives that people mean when they say "The Co-op" in this country. What you've got so far, though, would be great for a Co-operative Movement (UK) page or something similar. If you've got more time than me, feel free to take the stuff on my sandbox and expand and publish: otherwise, I'll make it my priority when I get some free time. Cheers. JonStrines (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Coat of arms of Wakefield (city).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of arms of Wakefield (city).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Coat of arms of Wakefield (district).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of arms of Wakefield (district).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Coat of arms of the City of Sydney (old).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of arms of the City of Sydney (old).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Membership.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Membership.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:R.carroll/psw

Is this meant to be listed on the [[Category:Consumer Co-operatives of the United Kingdom]] page, as it looks like a page you created but never moved to the mainspace. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. I was doing it in my user page while the article was expanded. It's still very much a stub but I shall add to it in its correct place. I've removed this page from the category that you added as well! Richard ^{( T | C )} 01:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Societies of The Co-operative Group

I've left a response to your discussion here. (Berk2 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Image:IM000073.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IM000073.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. howcheng {chat} 21:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Membership.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Membership.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hugahoody (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hi, i would like to have your opinion about a discussion which i started here, thank.Kingroyos (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Coat of arms of Calderdale

The article Coat of arms of Calderdale has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Total lack of notability.

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. Fram (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Coat of arms of Calderdale for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coat of arms of Calderdale 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/Coat of arms of Calderdale until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Fram (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Coat of arms of the City of Sydney (old).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coat of arms of the City of Sydney (old).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) 17:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Santander Cycles Leicester

The article Santander Cycles Leicester has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ill-fated scheme that lasted just two years. Topic clearly fails general notability. Already sufficient coverage and references at Leicester#Transport, so this article simply isn't needed.

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. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]