User talk:JohnArmagh

Great job on the Abbeys and Priories of Ireland pages! Where have you been getting the names - ordinance survey maps?

Zoney 22:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

---

Lots of research and travelling! Many are not marked on OS maps so you have to go to old records. Not finished yet. JohnArmagh 09:15, 16 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi. Would Temple Cronan in the Burren qualify for your list? Are you planning to add photos for each place and to fill all the new wiki links you create :)

Fin 19:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I am investigating all placenames with 'Temple' as this indicates a likely Knights Templar preceptory - though I intend to differentiate between the tradition and the evidence.

I have visited some 400+ foundations throughout the British Isles and northern/central France with a camcorder. If I ever live long enough I would like to convert these into 3-D virtual rendering of the sites. --JohnArmagh 19:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I noticed your recently-added image Image:Ba-n-neter.jpg, and I wondered if you were aware that Wikipedia now has WikiHiero, a facility for constructing Hieroglyphs live. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 16:10, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Senta.jpg was garbled or empty or some such, so I deleted it. You might want to try re-uploading? Stan 04:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear John, you have created a page named kings of Svitjod. On what source do you base this list? It surprises me that I have never heard of a Norwegian kingdom by an old name for Sweden before (see Svitjod).--Wiglaf 17:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you added the Arabic for Hosni Mubarak's name. Do you know the Arabic script? Quadell (talk) 19:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

An interesting way to respond to my merge requests, but I believe the custom is to use talk pages rather than dueling templates.  :-)
Has there been any discussion about this elsewhere? The two lists in List of leaders of Afghanistan and Heads of Government of Afghanistan seem redundant and overlapping; it's confusing trying to figure out which one serves what purpose. Why do you object to a merge? One would redirect to the other, so there would be no broken links. --Ardonik.talk()^* 18:48, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Do you plan to add text to that article? Because an article which only consists of a photo isn't much worth it - if you need a place where you can put photos for articles not yet written maybe Wikipedia Commons might be the better place for them. andy 15:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow! hold your horses. Use Google to look through first to find any You've duplicated Bishop of Nottingham and no doubt several others too. I think the correct title is Bishop of Nottingham rather than List of Bishops of Nottingham. The main list is the one linked to from Bishop of Nottingham, wherever it is. Dunc|☺ 10:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that the accepted standard for a see also section is as below:
==See also==

Dori | Talk 23:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, when I was creating the Template:Argentina infobox I did see your changes from President into Head of State and Head of Government that you did in the previous table that contained that info, but in Argentina the Head of State and Head of Government are the same person: the President. You might want to check the Cia factbook's Argentina entry and Head of Government. Fernández is the cabinet chief, but hasn't the responsabilities/powers that a Prime minister has. I didn't edit it because it's starting to look like an edit war or something, which isn't the case. --SpiceMan 07:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at this ! Template:Infobox_Countries and this Template_talk:Infobox_Countries ! That makes life somewhat easier. --SpiceMan 11:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Blimey - thanks --JohnArmagh 11:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the great-looking tables with rulers of Ethiopia (and other countries). Great job, really! Since I'm a table freak myself wanted to ask you one thing: do you create all those great tables by hand or is there a program to do that? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Contrary to what you might think, your reply helped me a lot. The words "word macros" are the key here :). Thanks again. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:08, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hello!

I see from your contributions that you are interested in Russian topics. Perhaps you would like to join the new Russian wikipedians' notice board? It is a discussion forum for wikipedians interested in all things Russian. Also, each week we pick an unfinished stub article to improve through collaboration.

Russian Collaboration of the Week

Every week, a lacking Russian topic is picked to be the Russian Collaboration of the Week. The current RCOTW is Vostochny.

Notice boards and Collaborations-Of-The-Week have become increasingly popular on wikipedia reciently, with Irish, British, US and many more. There is also a score board for competing collaborations! See FAC.

Isn't it about time we got articles on Russia up to standard?

Hope to see you on RWNB!

Seabhcán 12:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think this should be renamed Monarchs of Dahomey for simplicity. Any thoughts? - Xed 18:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason I chose Rulers as the title was because it has generic connotation, as opposed to Monarch which, although it means sole ruler, is usually applied to Kings/emperors etc. rather than chiefs/princes etc.

I felt that the use of generic terms in the titles would make it easier to determine what it was the listing was about rather than using a plethora of different styles or titles in the heading which would make it difficult to determine the actual status of a given incumbent and compare it with the status of an incumbent in another list. This is why I have gone down the route of dividing the lists into Heads of State, Heads of Government, Colonial Heads and Rulers.

In its widest sense monarch could be also applied to any head of state, but I chose to use the term Head of State for the heads of sovereign or autonomous modern states, reserving Rulers for defunct states or modern tribal states or polities. --JohnArmagh 23:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My concern wasn't about the generic terms you're using in the articles you've created about african rulers (excellent work by the way), but more about the specific article Rulers of the Fon state of Danhome. The people in the list are almost all Monarchs (in the sense of being Kings and Queens). The wikistyle here would be to have a title with the word Monarch in (as in List of British monarchs, List of Swedish monarchs etc). Secondly, the words "of the Fon state" in the title seem unnecessary. Thirdly, Dahome is generally known as Dahomey. Would you be happy with "List of monarchs of Dahomey" or "List of Dahomean monarchs"? I just want to make thing consistent and simple - Xed 00:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An archdiocese is the area under the diocesan authority of an archbishop; whereas a province is the area under the metropolitan authority of an archbishop, including his archdiocese and several other (suffragan) dioceses. For example, the Archdiocese of Liverpool covers greater Liverpool, but the Province of Liverpool covers most of northern England. The Diocese of Salford is in the Province of Liverpool, not the Archdiocese of Liverpool.

Thanks for the greeting! Enjoy yourself tomorrow!

I hope you don't mind, but I created some new headings on your talk page just in order that the table of contents displays up near the top of the page.

zoney ♣ talk 10:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for noticing my contributions, John :-) . Hopefully I can find arms for the rest of the Bishops too. Do you know if the RC Bishops have crests/arms? Thanks ♪ Craigy ♫ 08:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:StAugustinesAbbey.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.

I just wanted to thank you for your quick response on Talk:Kings of East Anglia. When I made that comment, I didn't expect to ever hear back - it's not exactly a high traffic page, nor is it a typical question. Imagine my surprise. :) I mean, sure, you've edited it, and it's probably on your watchlist, but it also lay untouched by you for six months. Good show. PS - What did you mean by "(minuscule having not been developed at the time)"? --Golbez 07:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not use "small" tags to set text below 100% of the user's default - it makes pages difficult to read, for people with visual disabilities. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 18:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you get anywhere with this? Andy Mabbett 14:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently did a rewrite of this article's intro §; I just wanted to drop you a line out of courtesy to say that I have since done another rewrite, incorporating many of your revisions but with my own particular spin. I'm sorry if this was in any way stepping on your toes; but I'm really obsessed with refining and refining intro §s & I hope you can approve of my edits. Thanks. Doops | talk 28 June 2005 04:58 (UTC)

Hi, I see you wrote tha above page, I've just written King Arthur (opera) to fill a red link, and in doing so have made another King Oswald of Kent I see from your page he appears not to exist, was the character in the opera fictitious, or is Oswald corruption of the name of one of the known Kings, I was going to do a stub on him, but can't find any information at all. I wondered if you knew anything. Regards Giano | talk 15:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, poor old Ossie will just have to remain in the red for a little longer. Thanks Giano | talk 22:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Australia page as being an expatriate/overseas Australian. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Australian Wikipedians for instructions.--Rmky87 02:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created Donnchadh, having found it on the Most Wanted Pages list. I was wondering if you might know of any online resources that would help me fill it out (and the other Irish King stubs) a bit?

The Land 12:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello, good work on La Massana, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in La Massana? You can simply add links, preferably as the inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks! Something to back up those figures would be nice. Lupin|talk|popups 03:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've just been using your (really, really fantastic) table of Bamangwato chiefs. I've linked a few of the names to articles lurking under variant spellings, but I'm not sure I've done as you'd like because I don't fully understand the table. Am I right that the large text refers to official style/name, while the smaller text is the commonly used name? And what about the italicised bits (perhaps check sp, as surely shd be Mmaphiri, and possibly Lerraraetsa or other with double-r). Ooh, this list so useful! JackyR 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, check out Temple Farm in Strood. THe article doesn't have much on it, but in fact all the "temple" names in Strood (Estate, School, Road) are from a Templar estate the house of which still exists amid the warehouses and industry down by the River Medway. Would you like me to feed you stuff about this as I come across it? (I'm doing bits of Medway hist.) JackyR 22:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I´m currently working on Lamu Islands, and in that connections I came across Rulers of Pate, which I believe were mainly written by you. Excellent work! Just one thing: do you have any reference of the inf. given? Regards, Huldra 02:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! bd2412 T 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that in your scratchpad / draft / alternative articles User:JohnArmagh/Concise List of Roman Emperors and User:JohnArmagh/List of Roman Emperors you had the categories still activated, so they were showing up in Category:Ancient Rome and others. I've deactivated them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it".) Cheers, Ziggurat 22:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rulers of the Gibe State of Guma you initiated uses the word horse name as an alternative name for rulers. Can you tell me what it is. I've never heard of it. Regards --Okko2 07:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just started Barking Abbey - regards Gordo 09:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Broomholm Priory.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brentwood Cathedral2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BeeleighAbbey.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:BeeleighPriory.jpg. The copy called Image:BeeleighPriory.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 13:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Sfan00 IMG 14:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

John, noticed you have an image on the above in List of cathedrals in the United Kingdom. In the interest of accuracy, Spynie Church is unfortunately not on the site of the old cathedral but the stone that was in the old cathedral is indeed in this church. The site of the old cathedral is about 200 metres south of Spynie Castle where a small fragment of the wall is still existent. The stone was transported to the new church. Rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political Affiliations: Gambia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice you have a little whinge on your home page about poor use of the English language.... well, at least I can't accuse you of being a WPB, because yer obviously not Pommie, whatever your accent, Mate!

I just rejigged your edits to Cathedral a tiny bit.... and now I'm gunna tellya one of my pet whinges. I can't stand blanky superfluous brackets! Here's a real bewdy! I wonder if you wrote it!

"The word cathedral is derived from the Latin noun "cathedra" (seat or chair), and refers to the presence of the bishop's (or archbishop's) chair or throne. In the ancient world, the chair was the symbol of a teacher (and thus of the bishop's role as teacher), and also of an official presiding as a magistrate (and thus of the bishop's role in governing a diocese)."

I would write those sentences with only the first set of brackets. (seat or chair). I utilise brackets in that sort of way regularly, but I hate finding them around things like "(for example, at Strasbourg)" when "such as Strasbourg" says it equally well. So.....you know what I've done (without even looking)!

Where are you busy being a Christian at? I attend one of the last bastions of Anglicanism in the Sydney Diocese. --Amandajm 11:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, there is a section of that Cathedral article that is just stubs. I suspect you might be the right person to complete those bits. How about it? --Amandajm 11:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry John! can i encourage you to do some more work on that article? --Amandajm 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John!

Your list of cathedrals is really good. I've just had a fiddle with it.... basically I've Wikified it by reversing the first two paragraphs so that the defintion now says what it is rather than beginning with what it isn't. And removed the first section heading because it was unnecessary and un-wiki. Plus a few minor tweaks so that it was less conversational.

So I hope you'll be happy with what I've done. Also, I read the discussion page and noticed comments about some buildings predating the CofE... well, regardless of that, the article is about cathedrals that are or were functional. These places that are listed under that heading have that current function within the CofE, so it's nonsense. If you were writing from some other historic standpoint, it would be different.

Good work! Amandajm 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political Affiliations: Congo/Kinshasa/Zaire has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — bd2412 T 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mwai KibakiPortrait.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. Retropunk (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pierre NkurunzizaPortrait.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. Retropunk (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Big Fat Wah, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Fat Wah. 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. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Region of Great Britain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thank you for the image of Litvinenkos grave. Could you perhaps add some context information. I would like to know on which cemetery in which city this grave is located. Greetings, Longbow4u (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain please, per your edit summery, why you changed the name of the article Lists of religious houses in Scotland back to Lists of abbeys and priories in Scotland citing (i) convention and (ii) lists specifically exclude hospitals? Could it be perhaps that the conventions are your conventions and the hospitals mention is that you've seen the proposed changes in my user space because why else why would you specifically mention hospitals that do not presently exist in the article? The title that you have now reverted to is not inclusive of religious houses in Scotland and I will change back to the inclusive name. Bill Reid | Talk 19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on Talk --JohnArmagh (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you added to you're original post but I'm watching football so I'll add my reply before you're addendum. You don't own articles and the present list is not inclusive and is miles out of date and no work has been done it for ages. I acknowledge that you did much good work and it will not be lost but it seriously needs updating and the approach being adopted is to develop the article in a logical manner.

Its not in your power to extend any exclusion based on your own set of rules and I personally don't favour the existing article design. I don't agree with your personal standardisation because there is no such thing as standardisation in articles or lists. An article is an article. No I don't want you to stop you're input to the list but the article was going nowhere and it needs to be moved on. Quite honestly, maybe you should consider changing the list titles that you do edit quite vigorously to something like the Scottish article title. I intend now to get the info produced by Deacon and myself (currently on my user space) out into the list as soon as possible. Bill Reid | Talk 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my tone was appropriate above, sorry about that. The problem with the existing layouts is that they are not inclusive. The titles are misleading referring to abbeys and priories but the lead says that they also include friaries and "other monastic establishments". Yes I had noticed the Scottish list was dormant and that is precisely what prompted me to do something about it. I fail to understand why medieval religious houses should be limited to abbeys and priories when all the other religious houses (such as houses of knight templars, knight hospitillars and the secular collegiate houses) are ignored. I can understand your reluctance to include the others because of the work involved but that shouldn't be a deterring reason. What is being done is to build on your work and to include all medieval religious establishments in Scotland. You can see what is being prepared here [1]. I'm not familiar with the OS's Monastic Britain but if it refers only to establishments that can be plotted on a map then it will list very few of the Scottish places. I have to say that I'm not a fan of standardisation and actually prefer diversity but I may be in a minority there. The list we are working on is different in format from yours and we also use the standard WP footnote system, so maybe they could survive as separate lists. You have also defined the lists as monastic establishments whereas ours includes secular houses so there is overlap; the question is, are there sufficient differences to survive in the longer run? Bill Reid | Talk 09:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can say that the info regarding the secular houses is not comprehensive. The book Aubrey Gwynn & Richard N. Hadcock, eds. Medieval Religious Houses: England And Wales, rev. ed. Oxford, 1972. would meet your requirements very well. There is also an equivalent for Ireland as indeed there is for Scotland and is my main source but not entirely. In fact I would be very surprised if the info on English and Welsh houses is not at least as good as that available for Scotland. So you don't need to worry about not having comprehensive information on all religious houses. It would mean only a title change to your lists and the new info added. Wikipedia is the winner with all info under one roof. Bill Reid | Talk 17:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to get back to you - real life intervened. Personally, I don't think there is a need for a standard format. The table styles and the manner of ordering the information are different (yours is by location whereas ours is by religious order as adopted by the three sister volumes for E&W, I and S) but I'm wondering is that a problem? I don't think there are any published references with enough detail to be of any value for listing almshouses or hermitages; not in Scotland anyway but if you've got info then why not. Bill Reid | Talk 16:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political Affiliations: Argentina has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why it ends at 3 October 1901. Have there been no rulers of Kabul since then? Kingturtle (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JohnArmagh, I notice that you changed my "different to" to "different from" in two places. I can live with the change, noting that one is my customary manner of expression and the other is somewhat different to it. (If some American had changed it to "different than" I would have reversed it without hesitation.) I'm going to be terribly pedantic here and say that I don't like the change being referred to as a "correction" because it is simply your preferred alternative, and may perhaps be the one in more common use. Amandajm (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. There's a considerable difference between changing "couldn't have", in which the "have" is a verb and changing the preposition "to" to "from" in "different to". The use of any particular preposition in that mmanner is more custommary than grammmatical. There are certain forms which are usually observed. In this case "different from" appears to be growing in usage. Please don't treat me like an ignoramus, which is what you are doing when you equate this usage which "couldn't of".

On the subject of "St. James's", (likewise Jesus's), The use varies locally, and ought to be respected. In Sydney, St. James' Church is nearly always refereed to in that manner. However, St. Thomas's, North Sydney, is St. Thomas's. Please continue to fix real errors wherever you find them! Amandajm (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the Anglican/CofE problem. I'll try to keep it in mind. Amandajm (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made additions to this article. I'm sure it needs editting for grammar, spelling, expression etc, if you would have the time to take a look at it. You might also have some ideas to contribute. Someone with detailed knowledge obviously wrote a lot of the earlier stuff, but didn't bother to reference it. It's always a pain to try to do it later. Amandajm (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the changing of Charles' to Charles's: as you are not making any correction, and are instead merely replacing one acceptable style with your preferred altarnative, you should leave the long-standing punctuation mode alone until you have achieved a consensus for making any changes to it, rather than edit war. I've begun a discussion for you at Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales#Possessive punctuation. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of rulers of Katanga, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Dubious accuracy; no references given, inconsistent with text at History of Katanga and Msiri, among other articles

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edits to Richard Dawkins after reviewing WP:MOS and Apostrophe. Specifically, I noted the following three things:

1. Two references that appear in the article use Dawkins' in the titles of the articles: "Richard Dawkins' Follow-Up to God Delusion Sold to Free Press for $3.5 Million" and "Missing link: creationist campaigner has Richard Dawkins' official website banned in Turkey". Per the MOS, we cannot re-render those into the other spelling form.
2. The Dawkins' spelling is predominant even in the talk page. Accordingly, consensus appears to be to use Dawkins'.
3. Neither the MOS nor the article on apostrophe usage note a British/American variance in treatment of possessives of names. The difference is noted to be on a writer-by-writer basis. Note that the of two articles I mentioned above, one is published in a US work, and the other in a UK work.

Accordingly, I can see no reason to alter the spelling. If you think that the spelling should be changed to Dawkins's in the original text of the article—which would create a mixed-spelling situation because of the titles—I encourage you to open discussion on the matter at Talk:Richard Dawkins and build consensus before attempting to make the change again. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact that the grammar is simply incorrect does not constitute reason enough then we might as well abandon any pretence to adhere to standards of language

Consensus does not necessarily indicate correctness. It merely indicates perception. If a mistaken perception is allowed to propogate then this can only lead to an umdermining of standards - and the undermining of the high standard to which the English language has attained, following centuries of evolution, must be seen as an anathema to anyone who cares about the language.

There may come a time when it becomes acceptable in encyclopedic articles to render them in text speak. That day is not yet here (and I hope to God that I will not be around to see that tragic time), but the propogation of erroneous or carelessly perceived language usage does nothing to uphold the standard of English, but rather it merely paves the way for the inevitable deterioration of the language which non-adherence to standards will lead.

Any authority whatsoever which considers that the absence of a possessive s is ever acceptable other than where the terminating s in a noun is due solely to the noun being a plural, such authority is wrong, and whatever the authority purports its authority in thereby most certainly undermines its authority in the discipline of the English language - and probably therefore fatally compromises its authority in whatever else that authority claims authority in. --JohnArmagh (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:C.Fred" This page was last modified on 12 September 2009 at 15:24. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

The dispute should refer to where Dawkins name came from. Dawkin had a son, that is why the name Dawkins exists, as it is Dawkin's son, though the apostrophe was dropped. What you are suggesting makes sense, unless you realise that Dawkins itself has a possessive clitic, in which case you would be effectively trying to write Dawkin's's.Ninahexan (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper nouns per se need not follow grammatic conventions. Hence it is quite acceptable for a place to be called St. James' Park, or for a street to be called St. Johns Street, or a commercial organization to be called Barclays Bank. The origin of Dawkins may well have been Dawkin's son, but the development of the Norse-type contruct (i.e Dawkinsson) pre-dates the introduction of the apostrophe.

Certainly the incorportation of grammatic convention into propoer nouns can cause anomalies, albeit rare: for instance one may refer to the checkout at a particular Sainsbury's store as the Sainsbury's's checkouts, whereas one should technically refer to checkouts at Sainsbury's stores in general as the Sainsbury'ses' checkouts. --JohnArmagh (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm glad I found your page, what an excellent list of priories. Amazing how many are red-linked. I was working on the Osmund Lewry article, and tried to find out something about Hawkesyard priory, and it turned out there was almost nothing on it. I have commented about this on Wikipedia Review [2]. Previously banned user (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started editing Denny Abbey today using English Heritage's 2003 guidebook to the site. I soon realised that a huge amount of editing of the article would be required, and not being a historian perhaps I was the wrong person to do it. Would you or someone in the Wikiprojects you are associated with, be interested in buying a copy & then carrying on a re-edit? At £2.99 it's quite cheap to buy.

If anyone has questions I live nearby, and know the Curator well and I'm sure can find answers.--Lidos (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of rulers of Kuba. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of Kuba. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of rulers of Kuba requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pgallert (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are List of rulers of Kasongo Luunda (Yaka), List of rulers of Ruund (Luunda). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of Kasongo Luunda (Yaka) for List of rulers of Kasongo Luunda (Yaka), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of Ruund (Luunda) for List of rulers of Ruund (Luunda). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of rulers of Kasongo Luunda (Yaka) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ThemFromSpace 03:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

now we have one declined speedy and one accepted speedy, for the same type of article created by you. I have asked the declining admin for an opinion on the policy here. If I was wrong tagging the Kuba list I will assist in getting in undeleted, of course. Brgds, Pgallert (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Timneu22 · talk 12:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the notice. It is not an experiment or test page. JohnArmagh (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of rulers of the Yoruba state of Sabe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:LIST - all entries in the list do not have articles - notability of the entries is not established

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Amsaim (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of rulers of the Yoruba state of Ketu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:LIST - all entries in the list do not have articles and are unsourced - notability of the entries is not established

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Amsaim (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of rulers of the Yoruba state of Icha has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:LIST - all entries in the list do not have articles and are unsourced - notability of the entries is not established

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Amsaim (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of rulers of the Yoruba state of Dassa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:LIST - all entries in the list do not have articles and are unsourced - notability of the entries is not established

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Amsaim (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. Please take a moment to take reviewMOS:DATE#Full date formatting. The "Strong national ties" rule only applies to English-speaking countries. For articles with strong national ties to non-English-speaking countries or where there are no strong national ties are apparent, the "retaining the existing format" rule applies. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have been duplicating your efforts.

• List of abbeys and priories in England
• List of abbeys and priories in England - Counties E to L
• List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties H-W
• List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties M to W

Might I suggest a different approach. Similar to the List of windmills in the United Kingdom, create sub-lists per county if there are a sufficient number of entries to justify a sublist - I used 20 as a base point for a separate windmills by county list. Counties will have to be the modern ones. You can annotate places that have moved from their historic counties by means of a note in the article. See List of windmills in Kent for an example. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At one time the England page was made by one contributor into virtually just a list of counties with links to the county lists - which really just undermined the subject and purpose of the page, - Not necessarily so, see List of windmills in the Netherlands.

Suggest you create individual county lists where appropriate. Deletion of the duplicated lists can come later. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the Netherlands list with List of windmills in Belgium. The Netherlands are all split into sublists per WP:SIZE. Belgium is part split as some areas don't have many windmills, whereas others do. The France list is similar. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's transcluded, why is List of abbeys and priories in Kent a redlink? Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks only exist because the article hasn't yet been created. I'm not sure what you mean by what happens when more references are included on a page than the Wiki software can currently cope with. AFAIK, there is no limit to the number of references on an article. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my post above, see WP:REDLINK, which explains all about redlinks. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MonasticHouses NonChristian Wiltshire England has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties M to W is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties M to W 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 03:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edit to List of monastic houses in Bristol in which you replaced full words with abbreviations (eg granted -> gnt). Is there any particular reason for this? My understanding is that it is best to avoid specialist abbreviations which might confuse general readers who stumble onto the page.— Rod ^talk 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is that the word, amongst others, is repeated a significant number of times in the Monastic Houses of English counties articles. Because these abbreviations are essentially "specialist" each such article contains an index of abbreviations (by way of a template). (I am currently in the process of going through each county using data from Knowles & Hadcock's Medieval Religious Houses of England & Wales and introducing consistency as I go, as the county articles are also used as transclusions in the article which lists, by county, all monastic houses in England.) JohnArmagh (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the transclusions (I remember helping to set that up, but whether they are still appropriate is another debate), however I would prefer all of the articles to have the English written in full and to get rid of the index of abbreviations on each of the county articles and the England list, to make them more readable for non specialists. I think each county article is likely to get editors and, more importantly, readers, who will not want to consult that table to work out what the different entries mean and are therefore likely to change them to the full words. If not the abbreviations may need to be added at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations).— Rod ^talk 06:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might well be the case, but the abbreviations are not of a specialist nature - they are of commonly-used often-repeated words, in their commonly-used definitions. The lists are not of a specialist nature, and do not make such extensive reference to specialist information as do the works I am using to source the information - which are replete with unfamiliar abbreviations requiring constant use of the list of abbreviations. In this work, being part of an encyclopaedia, the abbreviations are limited in number, and of non-technical words. It is intended that when I have completed my work there will be little requirement for further editing, and where there is it does not require any more than a basic knowledge of English, and how to use an index of abbreviations in order to make sense of the article as all the relevant information should be contained therein. JohnArmagh (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We wanted to let you know that we've used one of your pictures in a project of ours: http://litpics.tumblr.com/post/6364490743/lit-a-days-tour-by-percy-hetherington-fitzgerald

We created a computer program to generate random pairings of sentences from public domain texts and public domain / creative commons images. Some of the pictures we've selected come from the Wikipedia Commons. All the pictures we select ourselves, but the pairings and the text are random. Of these pairings that are generated, we only post the most interesting combinations.

We welcome any feedback about our site.

Thanks for sharing your pictures,
Samantha and Patrick

blog: http://litpics.tumblr.com/
email: [email protected]
twitter: http://twitter.com/litpics

Litpics (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. What is the rationale behind including monastic granges in the Template:MonasticHouses Abbreviations&Key England ? There were literally thousands of monastic granges in Britain. Monastic hospitals are excluded, yet they were far less common. A lot of people don't understand the difference between a monastery and a grange and I think lumping them together is unhelpful. If you were to list all the granges, you would not be able find the monasteries in the list. Surely a 'monastic house' implies somewhere which houses a community of monks/nuns/canons (ie. a monastery), not just a manor/farm owned by such a community? Verica Atrebatum (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently re-thinking the issue of granges - I intend to make the inclusion on the same basis as that of hospitals and exclude any which did not function at one time as a monastery. I am currently going through each monastic establishment, county by county using Hadcock & Knowles Medieval Religious Houses, which is a very lengthy process. JohnArmagh (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, I note your addition of the word "generally" to the section on parentheses and brackets. You might care to look at Talk:American and British English differences#Parentheses/brackets where I concur. Being a newbie I was a little hesitant to disagree with established grammarians though! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Silent-silent-mind (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of monastic houses in Greater Manchester has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

a newly created list of one item, with screeds of other irrelevant content. a single reference that speaks to existence not notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody cheek - I haven't finished the article yet. If it is deleted I'm putting it right back. 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I note you have recently changed several words on List of monastic houses in Somerset to abbreviations eg granted to "gnt". As I commented previously on the similar list for Bristol on your talk page above & have commented on the talk page for the Somerset list, I can not understand the rationale for this. In my opinion it makes it more difficult for the casual reader to understand. List of monastic houses in Somerset is a separate and should be understandable in its own right even if it is transcluded into the England list (a system I believe I proposed), and whatever else is done on other articles. I believe the intention of the MOS is to make articles as readable as possible and intend to change the strange abbreviations to English, but wanted to discuss with you first.— Rod ^talk 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I didn't think Somerset & Bristol were being singled out - they just happen to be the ones on my watchlist. I still don't understand why you should want to make anyone consult a glossary rather than just reading plain comprehensible English within the description of details of the abbey concerned. What is the advantage of making them take that extra step? Wouldn't it be better to write in English & remove the need for the glossary?— Rod ^talk 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also several of the "historic county locations" for Bristol you have added to the Somerset list are north of the river and therefore in List of monastic houses in Gloucestershire rather than Somerset.— Rod ^talk 18:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will continue to disagree about the readability of all the abbreviations & I'd like to take it to a more public area for discussion so I will put a message on Talk:List of abbeys and priories in England asking others to comment - It would be great if you could give your rationale there as well. Fine re Somerset v Glos.— Rod ^talk 18:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the comments at Talk:List of abbeys and priories in England#Use of abbreviations? The consensus seems to be against using the abbreviations, but I wanted to make sure you had a chance to comment/persuade before I acted on it & replace the abbreviations on the Somerset list.— Rod ^talk

Thank you for accepting the consensus. I have replaced the abbreviations using find & replace function on the Somerset list & the only problem (which I've spotted) was corruption of the link to dissolution of the monasteries (which I've now fixed). Would you like me to do this for all the counties of England which would then make the main list consistent? Because of the way the transculsion of templates occurs I couldn't see how to edit the table of "abbreviations and key" to remove the right hand table - where is this stored?— Rod ^talk 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On List of monastic houses in Somerset in the entry for Haselbury Priory it says "possibly destroyed in the contests of the barons". Do you know whether this would be either of those at Barons' War?— Rod ^talk 20:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done 5 counties this evening & intend to do more tomorrow - but I'm getting tired & making mistakes so I'm going to stop to sleep. If you spot any problems with those I've done please let me know so I can try to avoid them in future.— Rod ^talk 22:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

List of monastic houses in Dorset (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Bindon

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JohnArmagh, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Akan state of Akuapem Anafo whether the article List of rulers of the Akan state of Akuapem Anafo should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving List of rulers of the Akan state of Akuapem Anafo, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HuniHiero.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Unwanted_edits_by_AWB_due_to_unusual_transclusions_in_templates where there is discussion about the problem caused by an unusual feature of this template. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, I've just taken another look at List of monastic houses in Somerset (even though I'm on a wikibreak) & I think Bedminster should probably be in the Bristol list although as there is no location or reference it is difficult to tell.— Rod ^talk 18:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of abbeys and priories in Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Leland (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) 12:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of monastic houses in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kelso (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) 19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've come across another entry for the City of Edinburgh in the List of monastic houses in Scotland article. e-Book about the monastery can be found here [3]. I wondered whether you could include it, as I don't want to mess the page up by bad editing! Cheers Brendandh (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted some references at Talk:Derry that shows both "Doire" and "Daire" are referenced in scholarly sources. Can you take a look and maybe we can get a consensus as to any changes we can make to the article. --HighKing (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently you re-instated a link/source to Wikimapia in this article. I am asking you to reconsider this, because of

• Wikipedia:RS/N#Wikimapia
• Wikipedia:EL/N#Wikimapia

In addition please read - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F

Google's terms would appear to state that you can't capture geo-codes from their imaging. WikiMapia which you have sourced to is in effect re-using Google's imaging as a base layer.

A credible alternative source, would be to source to http://ooc.openstreetmap.org/ (Old OS Mapping) and http://os.openstreetmap.org/ which is based on the 'definitive' OS OpenData streetview mapping.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go down this route then count me out of the additional work. I've made my (significant) contribution, so find some other mug. JohnArmagh (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never say anything you might regret later ;) .

This was what I sent in an e-mail to the PastScape's site maintainer's earlier :

"(not for Publication)

To: English Heritage.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I note that that the following article at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monastic_houses_in_Herefordshire (and others like it) reference the Pastcape database extensively. Currently this referencing is in the form of in-line citations.

What I would like to do is to do is add the National Monument Record alongside those citations, as this would help readers of the article and others identify specific resources, relating to those monuments. Another item of data stored in the NMR is the location details of the monuments concerned. Whilst the article concerned has location data it would be desirable to update it with the location given in the NMR (which is assumed to be definitive.).

I am reluctatnt however do this at present, because the Pastscape/NMR dataset held by you is not yet available under Open Government License terms, meaning that the current terms of use for the dataset are not necessarily compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike style licensing used at Wikipedia.

By Way of comparsion the US NRHP (National Register of Historic Places) database is (as a work of the US Fedral Government) public domain, and because of this Wikipedia is able to make extensive use of it.

I would strongly urge you to consider changing the terms of use for the NMR records on PastScape to the Open Government License ( with the exception of the pictures, whose copyright is clearly held by an external third party in many cases). This would enable the use of a 'definitive' 'reliable' source to create and update articles in Wikipedia and other projects. This by encouraging interest in the heritage you manage is considered a good thing.

..."

Depending on the reply, it might be possible to get the dataset 'unlocked' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your efforts in creating a considerable amount of effort in making articles on all those church related buildings, I was wondering if you would be willing to add your list articles (and the buildings in them to this Book).

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all those monastic building articles :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Ards Peninsula abbeys. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interested to share info with you on Docking Priory. Do get in touch via our website page (www.dockingheritage.org.uk/contactus). You seem to have got further in your research than we have! Anthony Maynard, Docking Heritage Group --Anthony Maynard (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm in the process of transcribing this at Wikisource,

I note a section starting at Page 279, on Church history, and religious houses.

As you are something of a Wikipedia expert, I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes looking over the transcription. It would be even better if you are able to make use of the source material in supporting articles on Wikipedia itself.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, Bristol Cathedral is not like St Mary's in Sydney. Like thousands of other cathedrals across the world, its orientation is east-west. And like most cathedrals it has what is called (architecturally) a "west front". Cheers!Amandajm (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's interesting - and indicates a possible issue with Wikipedia's edit logging. The only change I made in my edit was to the opening sentence. Contrary to the edit details shown I did not alter the coordinates in the infobox, nor any other text after the opening sentence. No-one else is using my account. JohnArmagh (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here's the link: [4]. It is a change from west to north. Is someone else using your account?

Amandajm (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at that section. I can't see why that information is located where it is, instead of being incorporated into the article. I'll have a fiddle with it. Amandajm (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article General list of Roman emperors 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/General list of Roman emperors 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. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]