User talk:RLamb

Welcome!

Hello, RLamb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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! DS 23:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I undid recent changes to a page I created on a 17th c. author, George Hakewill, as the new contributor (88.108.216.22) had added middle names for both him and his wife, and I think he/she did this without basis in fact. (Hakewill is not shown to have a middle name in any biographical dictionary, in contemporary references, on the title page of his works or in the signature on his will. Middle names were very rare at this period - I only know of three persons who used them - and for two people with middle names to find and marry each other sounds pretty fluky to me.) When I checked, over a very short time the same contributor appears to have made a series of similar minor changes to several pages covering a wide range of topics - adding middle names, changing dates and numbers by one digit etc. Is this deliberate vandalism, and should I report it? Or should I have left a message on the contributor's page before I undid his/her contribution? RLamb (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Peryam - reference to third wife

I feel as if I am just learning to talk...Can someone help with this: if a woman has been married three times, how do I identify her? By her maiden name? If so, and her maiden name coincides with that of another entry in Wikipedia, how do I distinguish between them? In the article on Sir William Peryam I would like to point out that he married Sir Francis Bacon's eldest half-sister Elizabeth. But if I put 'Elizabeth Bacon' the link redirects to a page on Elizabeth Bacon Custer.

I hope this is the correct page to raise this?

RLamb 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)RLamb[reply]

Normally, you'd use the name by which someone is most commonly known in English (for instance, George W. Bush for the current American president); see the naming conventions. If there's an article at that name already, you need to disambiguate the articles; the process can be a bit complicated, so I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation) instead of me trying to describe it here. And yes, your user talk page is the correct place for a {{helpme}}; you can also ask questions at the Help Desk if you prefer (helpmes will send you a new message when your question is answered, though, and you'll have to check back to the helpdesk if you try there). I hope that helps! --ais523 09:32, 22 February 2007 (U T C)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Help Me Request

{{helpme}}

Hi there, please provide us with information about what you require help with. Thanks, -- The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contribs) (Review)} 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, all taken care of. Happy editing!`--omtay 38 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, haven't got the hang of this at all yet. I hope I am posting my request in the right place now. It's this:

I just undid recent changes to a page I created on a 17th c. author, George Hakewill, because the new contributor (88.108.216.22) had added middle names for both him and his wife, and I think he/she did this without basis in fact. (Hakewill is not shown to have a middle name in any biographical dictionary, in contemporary references, on the title page of his works or in the signature on his will. Middle names were very rare at this period - I only know of three persons who used them - and for two people with middle names to find and marry each other sounds pretty fluky to me.)

When I checked, over a very short time the same contributor appears to have made a series of similar minor changes to several pages covering a wide range of topics - adding middle names, changing dates and numbers by one digit etc. Is this deliberate vandalism, and should I report it? Or should I have left a message on the contributor's page before I undid his/her contribution? RLamb (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Distasteful?

{{help me}} I was adding to the Thomas Nashe page and put in something about the content of his erotic poem, A Choise of Valentines. Have I been too detailed? It's difficult to know how to inform without offending.RLamb (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Charles Fitzgeoffrey

I have nominated Charles Fitzgeoffrey, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Fitzgeoffrey. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alexius08 (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on The Fated Sky

Hi. I'm the editor that originally tagged this article as needing expansion and links (and have since removed those tags). I've added a book info-box which you can feel free to add new information to that (e.g., number of pages). Also, I may not get around to adding them, but there are a number of book reviews out there (at least three) that could be mentioned in this article. In any case, just wanted to say keep up the good work. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the encouragement! I'm not a sufficiently frequent contributor to Wikipedia to edit fluently or well yet. I notice there is another book called 'The Fated Sky' referred to elsewhere, an autobiography - should I create a disambiguation page (and if so, how)? Also, should I enter Henrietta Branford's name in the Branford disambiguation page (and if so etc..)

RLamb (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should go ahed and enter Henrietta Branford in the Branford disambiguation page. There's no law one way or the other about doing that, so I recommend just thinking "does this make sense?" and say "yes, it makes sense." For me, authors are often referred to by their surname alone, so adding them to a disambiguation page should be no problem.

I wouldn't worry about a disambiguation page for the book until the work you mention with the same title(The Fated Sky) actually gets its own wikipedia article. Once it does (which you could do!), then a disambiguation page makes sense. There is a LENGTHY and WORDY wikipedia page on disambiguation that makes my head hurt. However, if you were to try to create a disambiguation page I'd simply use existing examples as sort of a template (e.g., Tilford (disambiguation). If you do something wrong, it's not the sort of thing that's a hanging offense. Best case scenario is you do it and it's accepted; worst case is someone fixes it up.

Probably the most useful thing I want to stress is the use of the book info-boxes if you're going to contribute or edit articles regarding books. Often there is incomplete information in an existing info-box and that can be a nice way to contribute easily. Also, for new articles about a book, the info-box adds a bit of weight to the article and makes it less likely to come under deletion scrutiny. I've won some "save the book article" battles and lost some. What can I say, I'm a librarian!

I say this in seriousness AND good humor: You've obviously mistaken me for someone who knows what's going on! Be fearless, be thick skinned, drink lots of coffee, and have a sense of humor. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Dog

The Good Dog
A contributor has added a negative opinion on the merits of this book. This seems as if it ought to be allowable, but the comment is incoherent and - well, ain't no near-sighted man can tell it from vandalism. Should it be removed? RLamb (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. For starters, contributions should slavishly adhere to neutral points of view. If someone wants to say something negative (or positive), that's bad. If they cite a third-party source saying something negative (or positive) that's good. Quoting a review that says "this book is boring" (again, quoting a review) is fine. Actually just editing the article to include a personal opinion, not so good.

What you pointed out was just vandalism, pure and simple, and I've removed it.

Feel free to remove things like that on your own and in good faith, and nobody should be upset with you. Be bold!

Again, thanks for the "heads up" on this! --Quartermaster (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Witton Church images

It's an excellent set of photos you've added to Commons - too good to be overlooked. For a start I've never liked the photo in the infobox and suggest you replace it with yours of the exterior (although even that's a bit cloudy - perhaps another one on another day?). There is certainly room for one of the photos in the body of the article - your choice; advice is at MOS:IMAGES. I am generally not a fan of galleries, but because of the variety and quality of your images, there could be a good case for adding one to this article - policy guidance is at WP:IG. Hope this is helpful. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've incorporated your image of one of the bells [File:StHelenWittonBelfry1.JPG] into a changeringer's Userbox: {{user:Martin of Sheffield/Userboxes/ChangeRinger}} Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub of Cool White

Hi, RLamb :) The only thing I know how to do is blank the whole page; my understanding was that page deletes ought better to go through a mod, senior editor, or at least someone with more than passing knowledge of Wikipedia. Someone like yourself :) As such, I do not blank or delete pages, and I'd rather not mess about with a disambiguation page; I suppose I could put a link there, but the tree of sources is a mite confusing, as you've explained. I can create a basic page, copy a table or whatever if I need to insert one, edit text in prose and table form, and do stubbing and some basic banners (notability, doesn't cite references, needs inline references, current event, etc). The penultimate is my current mission; not nearly enough stubs have been identified. If you feel you should delete any of the pages in question, or merge them or whatever, by all means do it. You seem to be all over it- which is great. I'm a guy with a decent mind who likes to do nice things in the spirit of αγαπη; I'm one of those Wiki angels or whatever you call us who do our small but useful things within our abilities. Cesium_133 (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan, Emir of Loheia

Tagging You don't need to do anything. Looking at this article, it looks like a fine, well-sourced start. The tag that I added to the talk page is {{WikiProject Yemen}}, which marks it as a part of WikiProject Yemen. It is not the same as a maintenance tag like {{Moreref}}, which is added to the article itself (rather than the talk page), indicating a problem with the article. Please respond on my talk if you have any more questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit revision

Okay that's fine I normally avoid making that mistake with the unmodernized language exceptions but I do appreciate correction when I mess up. Thanks! Demokratickid (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton

Good job on the article. Can you please add page numbers to the book cites? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page numbers are perfect. I deleted one quote in the footnotes that was basically the same as what you said in the text. You don't need both. Nice work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim added a pretty picture. Now it looks like a neat little article. BTW, User:Tom Reedy says hello. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to have added the pic. I happened to spot Ssilvers's edits (I stalk him relentlessly) and followed them up accordingly. This is a fascinating little article - and really rather sad. Tim riley (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

peice (26) => piece

I have corrected what appear to be 26 occurances of peice to piece of which you point out that 1 appears to be an invalid correction due to it being a say 16th century text. Tabletop (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bals des victimes

That is an interesting quote, and may be the origin of the whole myth. It's pretty certainly a joke, it seems to me. Good work digging it up! (I must say, that article is almost as much of an embarrassment as Yefim Smolin.) Languagehat (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rock-paper-scissors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meiji (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) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curly quotes

I just wanted to say that I hadn't looked deeper at the "curly quotes" issue than their mere existence. I don't want you to think that I am implying copyright violations on your part. In the past I have seen them associated with careless copy&paste jobs directly from other web sources, but I accept your explanation at face value. I apologize if my comment on that topic concerned you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Johnson image

Hi. Can you take a look through the permissions on the commons for this image and let me know what ou think. I have a number of concerns that permission has not actually been received for it's use - which isn't unusual for images uploaded by socks of Marquis de la Eirron. It seems that images on the National Archives need specific permissions to be granted - yet whether this image has actually been released under the OGL isn't clear. I'll take a more detailed look later, but it seems to me T&T there's some doubt - more recent government stuff released under the OGL I have less issues with, but NA stuff isn't necessarily in that situation. Ta Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Baartman

I stumbled upon quite the sockpuppet ring adding massive amounts of questionably sourced information to a few feminism articles. I restored to the article to before they started messing with it but I noticed you did a lot of work on the article. Feel free to revert me entirely if you feel the article was in good shape or add back parts as you see fit. Thank you! Brandon (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Bartley (comedian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Tobin (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) 09:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise (slave ship)

Hi, I'd been hoping to find references to some other "seizures," but none so far. This event appears so often in Bermuda history as a unique one, it does not look as if others occurred. I think your article is ready to go to the Main Pages; others may add, improve, change there. Have you created a hook for the "Did you know..?" announcements of new articles? It's a good way to drive traffic to one. Must be done within 5 days of posting a new article.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Enterprise (slave ship), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Times Digital Archive

I noticed you used several Times articles, apparently from the Digital Archive, in the Enterprise article. If you're using the Firefox browser (related to Thunderbird), you can easily copy the url for any online article from the top of the page, where it appears in the toolbar. Otherwise, you can go to History/Show history/ through most browser toolbars, for a listing of urls and articles consulted. You can copy the url from the second level of more detailed listings (or so it is on mine.) Good luck.Parkwells (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

on B start for Enterprise!Parkwells (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think we both know who earned the B. But when time allows I shall really try to understand what makes the difference between reasonable and good.RLamb (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, RLamb. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Villikins

Hi. I looked at the article. It looks like a good start. I must admit that I don't focus on song articles. If you have more specific questions, I'll certainly try to answer them. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Villikins and his Dinah, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, RLamb. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Dear RLamb, thank you for your help with my article! Much appreciation, Jwyj (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Villikins and his Dinah

Sorry for the later response, I've been living in a tent -- this looks interesting! You've already filled this article with a lot of content, I'll comb through it and see if I can put anything in musicological terms better than you already have. Cheers! Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 14:26, 13-08-2013 UTC 14:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, piece by piece:

"Members of the “Villikins” tune family..."

Variations of the melody to Villikins and his Dinah, and songs which are very similar to it, may be thought of as a family of related tunes.

"...are most easily spotted by the introductory tonic..."

These tunes can be easily distinguished in that they all begin on the same note, the tonic, which is the root note of the musical key in which the tune is written, and serves as a sort of reference point for all of the other notes contained within each melody respectively. (aside: to the casual listener, beginning a piece on the tonic sounds familiar and simple harmonically.)

"...then the outline of the major triad..."

The introductory tonic is followed by a major triad, which is a simple three-note chord; the root note of this chord (the lowest note it contains and the reference for all the other notes on top of it) is also the tonic. These notes are not played simultaneously (on top of one another, "vertical harmony"), but one after in sequence ("horizontal harmony") from lowest to highest, thus creating an "outline" of the major triad instead of playing the notes together as a chord. This triad is major, as opposed to minor/diminished/many other types of chords. (aside: major chords are by far the most frequently heard in popular music, and generally have a cheerful/upbeat air to them.)

"...in the first bar(s)..."

Most Western music is divided into bars, or measures, which count out beats and to some extent dictate and organize rhythm. In "Villikins," the major triad which follows the introductory tonic will occur in the first bar or so.

"...and the repeated fifth that follows immediately"

The highest note in the major triad is a fifth up from the tonic -- this is just a way of counting note value relative to their reference note, if you're curious as to how they are counted check out the intervals article -- and this note is repeated immediately after the triad finishes its ascent.

You can see all of this in action at the Mudcat site you linked to. If you look at the sheet music at the bottom of the page, you will see the first two notes are the same -- these are the tonic. They occur in the first bar, which you can identify by the vertical rule. After that, it is played once more, and followed by two more notes which rise up in pitch at a uniform rate. These three notes, including the tonic, are the tonic's major triad. These occur in the second bar. Finally, the highest note in the triad is played again at the start of the third bar -- that is the repeated fifth which follows immediately. Let me know if any of this is out of your reach and I'll try to explain it over!

What the author seems to be saying is: there have been many different renderings of this popular song. Variations of the song generally have one thing in common, which is a simple introductory motif, which as the properties I have described. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 16:07, 23-08-2013 UTC 16:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to scan the Cray page(s) in question which give melodic analysis, perhaps I could write them into the article myself? I don't have access to the book or a music library at the moment, unfortunately -- graduating sucks! Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 19:44, 23-08-2013 UTC 19:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think it would be best if you could write it up yourself, since you seem able to understand it. I haven’t actually seen the Cray book in print though, just searched it on Google Books. He has ten hits for Villikins, but I only looked at the ones on pages 166-168. Even those baffled me in places; but I think they're the pages where he's discussing where the tune came from, and where it went.RLamb (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robson

I'm glad it was helpful. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Oddingley Murders

Hello RLamb,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Oddingley Murders for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saartjie Baartman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goura. 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) 10:33, 25 November 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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RLamb. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, RLamb. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, RLamb. 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]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToThAc was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:RLamb/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:RLamb/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ToThAc (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RLamb! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ToThAc (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:RLamb/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:RLamb/sandbox. Thanks! Bkissin (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stothard v. Aldridge (May 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Ira Aldridge. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stothard v. Aldridge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stothard v. Aldridge, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Stothard v. Aldridge concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Stothard v. Aldridge, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stothard v. Aldridge

Hello, RLamb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stothard v. Aldridge".

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! CptViraj (📧) 06:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Updown Girl (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Updown Girl and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 09:11, 6 November 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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a griffin's claw full of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec21}} to your friends' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Updown Girl

On 4 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Updown Girl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that archaeologists found that Updown Girl, who was buried in England in the 7th century, had a mixture of West African and European DNA? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Updown Girl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Updown Girl), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 26,925 views (1,121.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Blanke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry VI. 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) 18:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]