Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

University Court

added a link pointing toVice-chancellor

University council

added a link pointing toVice-chancellor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)08:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mauls,

I wanted to let you know that I just taggedDrei Marc for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

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

You can leave a note onmy talk page if you have questions.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)13:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mauls, you might have looked at the talk page — or at least at the history, where my move in September was just three lines down — before unilaterally movingLocal Nature Reserve back to the lower-case version. There's discussion there. Please take part. Meanwhile, I've reverted your move.Bishonen |talk11:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Strongly agree. The capitals are significant, they indicate a significance that goes beyond the meaning of the individual words, and should not have been removed. There's a difference between a "local nature reserve" and a "Local Nature Reserve". My local nature reserve isKinder Scout – but Kinder Scout is aNational Nature Reserve. This modern obsession with minimizing capital letters is a nonsense (I disagreed withWP:BIRDCON too – not all common gulls areCommon Gulls) and we lose a shade of meaning – and gain nothing in return – by this weird obsession with removing capitals.Dave.Dunford (talk)13:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I see you've ignored my suggestion atTalk:Local nature reserve and you're continuing to make these contentious edits before consensus has been established. Nice.Dave.Dunford (talk)20:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with comments above. Mauls must not make these edits, unless consensus is established for their changes. I have reverted their edit toStokenchurch Gap for the same reason.David J Johnson (talk)13:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauls. I'm sure you changed these titles to lower case in good faith, but I think you'll find that they're officially spelt in title case by Natural England (who designate them) even in the middle of a sentence. See[1] and[2]. Would you be kind enough to revert the changes. --Bermicourt (talk)13:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with Bermicourt's comments above and the comments in the previous paragraph. I have reverted Mauls edits toStokenchurch Gap, pending consensus.David J Johnson (talk)13:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the articles under discussion are being left whilst being debated, pending consensus, but the revert was in relation to a completely different article,national nature reserve (United Kingdom), and a correction of a link to the genericnational nature reserve. There is no open discussion of the capitalisation of this article. There were also copyedit changes that were improperly reverted. Check before snap reverting!Mauls (talk)10:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did check and the article states "National Nature Reserve (United Kingdom). Please stop lecturing and discuss.David J Johnson (talk)11:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion on thetalk page fornational nature reserve (United Kingdom). The previous comments related to three entirely different articles; if you want to start a discussion relating to the national nature reserve article, you are welcome to do so.

I also don't understand your claim to have checked what you were reverting - why did you point the link back tonational nature reserve, the generic article rather than the UK designation? Also, why did you capitalise 'public enquiry', and why did you revert a correction of a missing apostrophe on 'inspector's decision'? You can see what you changed at[3]

Mauls (talk)13:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realise they are different articles. My concern in all articles concerned is that you seem to be obsessed with reverting titles to lower case without sufficient explanation. I really feel you should be answering the various editors concerns listed in the above paragraphs. Please don't lecture me about "starting a discussion", I have plenty of experience of editing here. Regarding "public enquiry" it can be used either way - which once again - shows your obsession with reverting to lower case. Frankly, I have more important things to do both in business and Wikipedia - but you need to answer the other contributors points.David J Johnson (talk)16:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already contributed multiple times to the ongoing discussion.Mauls (talk)11:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Logo of Swiss Cycling.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.Stefan2 (talk)22:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleGlenlough is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenlough 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.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleCrosby Cross-Roads is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crosby Cross-Roads 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.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleBallahutchin Hill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballahutchin Hill 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.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleSulby Bridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulby Bridge 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.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleGinger Hall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Hall 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.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleGardener's Lane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gardener's Lane 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.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedCentral Electricity Generating Board, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMinister of Power. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, whilstthis revert was valid, your reasoning is not: the NER owned the station and the neighbouring lines, but several other companies ran services into York by virtue of running powers: the Great Central; the Great Eastern; the Great Northern; the Lancashire & Yorkshire; the London & North Western; and the Midland. --Redrose64 (talk)19:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedYork railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNorth Eastern Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauls! As aSteward I'm involved in the upcomingunification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (seem:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking atyour account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password onSpecial:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate toping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk)22:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleSchool House Corner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/School House Corner 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.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing,Fee tail, has beenproposed formerging with another article. If you are interested, please participate inthe merger discussion. Thank you.MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk)11:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onTemplate:Infobox Isle of Man TT course requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination by visitingthe page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a requesthere.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectArthur Jenkins Indemnity Act 1941. Since you had some involvement with theArthur Jenkins Indemnity Act 1941 redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion if you have not already done so.Compassionate727 (talk)20:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mauls,

I wanted to let you know that I just taggedAgence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d'information for deletion, because it's not written in English. To request a translation, please visit thetranslation page. If you'd like to contribute to another Wikipedia, take a look at ourfull list of language projects.

If you feel that I made a mistake, you cancontest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note onmy talk page if you have questions.Bongan^®→TalkToMe←21:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you are the author of

( File:Battenburg-police.svg and also the otherBattenburg markings). unfortunedly as Battenburg markings go: "A typical car pattern consists ofseven blocks along the vehicle side. (Additionally, an odd number of blocks allows for both top corner blocks to be in the same fluorescent colour)" (emphasis added)

Unfortunedly the markings you created are 6 x 2 blocks, could you replace them by 7x2 blocks? (I think the odd number is important here)

Thanks in advance.WillemienH (talk)19:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedRiver board, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMinistry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauls;

Thanks for looking out for the articles on salt, which I see from your contributions are quite wide ranging. But "Salt Industry Commission" is not the right title for the article, since the subject is actually "Salt Commission." All the sources cited for the article (and a few more) call it Salt Commission or Salt and Iron Commission, and a Google search forSalt Industry Commission finds only the Wikipedia article and a few that are copied from it (it is amazing, though, how quickly those articles picked up your change!). I hope you can change it and the corresponding link back. All the best.ch (talk)04:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for carrying this out!ch (talk)05:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:CyclingSA logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)03:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedEssential Living Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSocial Fund. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Isle of Man Post.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you moved all of the sub lists ofScheduled monuments in Somerset from Lists of scheduled monuments in X to Scheduled monuments in X. Is there any reason for this as my understanding of the naming conventions is that lists should start their title with list of... (an exception was made for listed buildings)?—Rod^talk11:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles.—Rod^talk12:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of scheduled monuments, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageScheduled monuments in Cheshire. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what you were intending to do with regard toCategory:Lists of Scheduled Monuments in England? This appears to be an out-of-process category rename.WP:CFD (or speedy renames) are used for this purpose. ~Rob₁₃^Talk18:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the lack of response, I'm going ahead and reverting the out-of-process rename. Please consider opening a CfD discussion if you think the category should be renamed. ~Rob₁₃^Talk06:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I was out fishing on the Good_Olfactory Pond but after seeing your comment aboutlack of response (after waiting only 36 hours) I decided to head over toBU_Rob13 Pond. We are all volunteers, some busier than others. Am I making sense or wasting everyone's time ?Ottawahitech (talk)17:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)pleaseping me[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Given that category renames should be routed through CfD, undoing an out-of-process move is typically considered uncontroversial. I would certainly leave more time if the answer to the question were likely to make a difference, but in this case, there's really no answer that wouldn't end in this being reverted. The message was intended to educate without providing an actual warning. ~Rob₁₃^Talk21:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articlePrivy Councillor with responsibility for the Crown Dependencies‎ has beenproposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedCrown Estate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageContinental Shelf Act 1964. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:UCIContinentalCircuits.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BaldBoris01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:UCIAfricaTour.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BaldBoris01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:UCIAmericaTour.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BaldBoris01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Isle of Man Post.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectBritish Columbia Boundaries Act 1863. Since you had some involvement with theBritish Columbia Boundaries Act 1863 redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Tavix^(talk)02:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I looked up the"discussion" you refer to above. I am dismayed to see that no one suggested a different redirect (there are several plausible ones such asBritish colonization of the Americas and others).Ottawahitech (talk)17:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)pleaseping me[reply]

@Ottawahitech: That's the problem...there are several plausible ones. Someone searching this is better helped by search results where they can see all the articles in which this topic is discussed. Better yet, an article covering the act would be wonderful, and aWP:REDLINK encourages that more than a redirect would. --Tavix^(talk)17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mauls. Voting in the2016 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.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; about 80% of online sources, and about 90% of printed sources capitalize all the initial letters of Rail operating centre, this is why I capitalized it. I understand where you are coming from, but when a large majority use capitals, I assumed that would be the way. The article itself was uploaded through theAFC process and they did not query it. I'm not getting protective, if it needs to be lowercase, that's fine; however, the sources seem inclined towards capitalization (and I include the more reliable sources here such asThe Railway Magazine andNetwork Rail who coined the phrase). Regards.The joy of all things (talk)13:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How it is written in sources is not relevant. Wikipedia's Manual of Style dictates that it should be in lowercase, unless a proper name (a name of a specific thing). Rail operating centres are atype of thing, and are therefore correctly written in lowercase. Only a specific ROC would be capitalised, such as Manchester Rail Operating Centre.Mauls (talk)14:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; as least you have responded - most people just ignore me. Happy days and I hope the weather is good wherever you are. Regards.The joy of all things (talk)14:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You too. For reference, Manual of Style is available atWP:MOS.Mauls (talk)14:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Logo of the UEC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedPort of Gibraltar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBattle of Gibraltar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you foryour contributions toWikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by settingPreferences →Editing →Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.Thanks!Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)11:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creatingSydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, Mauls!

Wikipedia editorJoseph2302 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please expand and addsources

To reply, leave a comment on Joseph2302'stalk page.

Learn more aboutpage curation.

Joseph2302 (talk)20:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mauls: I see you've changed the contents of the articleDistrict collector to accommodate almost analogous Bangladeshi post.

• However, no references have been cited about either the Bangladeshi counterpart or the BCS.
• Also, in Bangladesh DMs/Collectors/DCs are referred to as Deputy Commissioner, so, wouldn't it be nicer to have a new article namedDeputy Commissioner (Bangladesh)? Especially, becauseDeputy Commissioner (India) already redirects toDistrict collector.
  Regards,SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions).19:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SshibumXZ: That is one way forward, if there was sufficient content, but thenDistrict collector would need to become a disambiguation page, and the article moved toDistrict collector (India). It can also be pointed out that the posts are very similar, with a joint history, and therefore the bulk of the two articles would be the same. Whilst this article retains a broad title, it cannot exclude the Bangladeshi content that was improperly reverted.Mauls (talk)08:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mauls: DMs/Collectors/DCs in India may perform the same functions as DCs in Bangladesh (with a few differences here and there), but the nomenclature is different.

• Yes, the posts share a common history, but, in my opinion, that doesn't say much. It's like sayingGovernor-General of India andGovernor-General of Pakistan should be merged because their history is derived fromGovernor-General of British India.
• There need not be aDistrict Collector (India) page for two more reasons, viz-

1. If I recall correctly,WP: MoS encourages natural usage of title wherever possible.
2. The pageDistrict Collector is already linked to numerous articles, and relinking it would be not worth the exercise.

If anything, there should be aDeputy Commissioner (Disambiguation). As Deputy Commissioner in Bangladesh exercises the roles of DM and Collector, but is designated as Deputy Commissioner. So, the plausible search term would be Deputy Commissioner, not District Collector.
Regards,SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions).14:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SshibumXZ: You now seem unclear whether you feel the Bagladeshi content should be split or not - you have mixed arguments for both. If the articles aren't split, it is not acceptable to just revert content because it is not about India. You are claiming the equivalent of saying an article titledGovernor-General is only allowed content about theGovernor-General of India, and that is not whatWP:MoS says at all! The content should not have been reverted when it was originally added, and it is entirely appropriate in order to provide a full-worldview in an article about the general term.

Also, the appropriate place for this is in the relevant section of the article talk page, where user Jafar Sadik Chy asked for discussion of this content.Mauls (talk)20:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mauls: yep, I have mixed feelings about the addition of content. On one hand the article should have a worldwide perspective whilst it retains a broad title, but on the other hand the content added is unreferenced, so should be removed.

What I would suggest is to moveDistrict collector toDistrict Collector (India) with a redirect, just likeHome Secretary (United Kingdom) redirects toHome Secretary, and to create new page titled eitherDistrict collector (disambiguation orDeputy commissioner (disambiguation).
And if it's all the same to you, I am thinking about copying this discussion toTalk: District collector.
Regards,SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions).14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SshibumXZ: That would be a better place - so that it is a broader discussion, and so that the eventual outcome is captured for future reference (so it doesn't get replayed later). If the Banglasdeshi content was removed for other reasons, that would be fair enough, but I unreverted it because the reversion was commented "This article is about India", and there was no discussion (despite a topic being started by the author). If it needs citations, this should first be tagged and a discussion held.Mauls (talk)15:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauls,

the EU Directive deals with rules of how firearms may be legally possessed. I.e. those are rules for law abiding citizens, as opposed to measures that may affect criminals and black market firearms. Is that understandable? Cheers, CPCimmerian praetor (talk)20:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cimmerian praetor: I disagree - that is now the meaning from the way it has been used. It is used to suggest "poor innocent law-abiding people having to follow these rules." Even if it did read how you claim, other pages on laws do not feel the need to point out the obvious - that laws are not always followed by some people. Either way, it is an inappropriate editorial comment and should not be in a Wikipedia article. See article talk page.Mauls (talk)20:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedOpen skies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBilateral (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mauls. Voting in the2017 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.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Template:Lang-roa has beennominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.Trappist the monk (talk)10:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAndrex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageIzal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you edited the articleBlack Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in thisnew user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐)01:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedIrvine Goulding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMerchant Taylors' School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Mauls, thanks for creatingVieille Bourse!

I've just tagged the page, using ourpage curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment onmy talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers atthe Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk)11:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedR (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageEuropean Communities Act 1972 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedGuild, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePrivilege (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedUnited Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageEuropean Communities Act 1972 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCSO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCentral Statistical Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,HMLS, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations fromreliable,independent sources.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is ofcentral importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft todraftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Boleyn (talk)19:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mauls. Voting in the2018 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.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Dear Mauls,

I noticed you contributed to the Initiative Q page a while back. I put some new info on the Initiative Q talk page you may want to consider. Please seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Initiative_Q

Thank you— Precedingunsigned comment added byReydelhumus (talk •contribs)08:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mauls,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creatingInvalidity Benefit! I edit here too, under the usernameFR30799386 and it's nice to meet you :-)

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

Please add more reference to support the content in the article

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|FR30799386}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit theTeahouse.

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

 — fr ^❄05:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMagistrates' court (England and Wales), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePolice court (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Logo of the CCF.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRipple (payment protocol), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageProtocol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,Court of the clerk of the market, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations fromreliable,independent sources.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is ofcentral importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft todraftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)00:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,Francisco de Paula Santander International Bridge, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations fromreliable,independent sources.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is ofcentral importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft todraftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)06:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition toGeneral Intelligence Presidency you included material copied from2010 Transatlantic aircraft bomb plot. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement whencopying within Wikipedia in the future. —Diannaa 🍁 (talk)21:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTitanic Brewery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageTrentham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectTown and Country Planning Regulations (London) (Indemnity) Act 1970. Since you had some involvement with theTown and Country Planning Regulations (London) (Indemnity) Act 1970 redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion if you wish to do so.R'n'B (call me Russ)15:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Paula Santander International Bridge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed asStub-Class, which is recorded on the article'stalk page. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions toWikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you cancreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk)06:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedChinese wall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCone of Silence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)10:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Court of the clerk of the market, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed asStub-Class, which is recorded on the article'stalk page. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions toWikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you cancreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~Kvng (talk)13:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articleTyndall Forum has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, not notable.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Mccapra (talk)03:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mauls. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission ordraft page you started,Draft:HMLS.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions atthis link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C)02:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you.Cheung2 (talk)08:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The man is now remembered for his brand of car, I believe some of that name are still on the roads. So I think this is a case of ignore all rules. What do you think - knowing that?Eddaido (talk)00:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I used that option first, and you reverted it..?Mauls (talk)00:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from my talk page)I’m very unclear what you are objecting to.

The phrase “the chairman was - the Earl of Shrewsbury and Talbot” does not make sense. Talbot was the Earl of Shrewsbury.

There are three options:

1. Use both names, but grammatically correctly (“the chairman was Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury”)
2. (“the chairman was the Earl of Shrewsbury”)
3. (“the chairman was Talbot”)

The last one made the most sense to me, given it was about the car company with his name. But you reverted that for reasons I don’t understand. Therefore I have now changed it to the second option.

Mauls (talk)00:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I speak throughout of Talbot Except where I quote from a news item. Please go back and see how it was. I have to go out urgently.Eddaido (talk)00:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text edited was not in quotation marks, and said “Earl of Shrewsbury”. Your comments here do not match your reversion. Please explain why you object to the words “Earl of Shrewsbury” being removed when it already said “Talbot”. As it was, it made no sense as a piece of English and was grammatically incorrect.Mauls (talk)00:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(to avoid further confusion by both parties) I cannot claim responsibility for every word since my recasting of the entire article. I'm content with the particular paragraph as I have just now amended it. If you find the limpidity of my prose unsatisfactory please fix it and then we can recommence discussion. Thanks,Eddaido (talk)02:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have now re-edited it to something almost identical to my edit you reverted. You seem to be objecting to anyone else editing this article - that is wholly inappropriate. What was wrong with me changing it to Talbot but not for you to do so?Mauls (talk)08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mauls. Could you please be kind and explain to me what is reverting about regarding art.Clan Ostoja? I see that Agricolae are making his own way to change without any discussion so I revert his changes since I ask for discussion and not his personal opinion. He reverted back again. In his last change, I see following:"reverted to revision 906964300 by Mauls (talk): Unsupported material that violates policy (TW) undothank Tags: Undo, PHP7". Question here is about DNA section that many find very interesting and that is part of research all over the Europe and that have scientific value and that have been deleted. I have not been on Wiki for long time so I just entered and saw his changes again. So, my question is - what is wrong with the DNA part? I would really appreciate Your input in this question! Best regardscamdan (talk)22:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMeeting of Parliament Act 1797, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageWrit of summons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)08:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF)16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF)15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Logo of the SCF.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing toFile:FuretDuNord.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used undernon-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go tothe file description page, and edit it to include anon-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described insection F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C)21:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the translation tag...this is good enough without needing special translation experts. Perhaps some finetuning and copyediting. Good work. Cheers and happy editing.Lectonar (talk)13:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF)20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,RTGSplus, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations fromreliable,independent sources.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is ofcentral importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft todraftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)}22:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,Elektronischer Schalter, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations fromreliable,independent sources.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is ofcentral importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft todraftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)}22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DannyS712 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes 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 resubmitwhen they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:RTGSplus 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 toDraft:RTGSplus, 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 andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DannyS712 (talk)03:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Mauls!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 theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!DannyS712 (talk)03:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where the bit in the MOS is that says royalty doesn't go in caps, just so I can remember for future sake (and by extension adjustTemplate:Did you know nominations/South Audley Street)? I'm afraid I'm not a fan of the MOS, it makes my head hurt. :-/Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SeeMOS:CAPS, in particular under 'Job titles' which gives an example of a king. So royal titles are not capitalised unless a specific name (so Queen Elizabeth), but not "a Queen" (although "the Queen" be a specific individual's name, but is probably best avoided for clarity by using the full name - c.f. Parliament of the United Kingdom / Parliament / a parliament). There is nothing to deviate from the standard rule (at the top of the page) that "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence." included in the MOS to say that 'royal' things other - no "Royal proclamation", "Royal prerogative" and so forth - seeproclamation androyal prerogative as examples. (It is also not a common style in written English to capitalise 'Royal' in that way - check other manuals of style).Mauls (talk)18:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the full stop but haven't you rather destroyed things with your next edit? Mind if I revert you?Eddaido (talk)10:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll revert, shortly, unless you plan to fix it? "Share types are not especially capitalised; company names should normally exclude "Limited" etc. unless referring very explicitly to the corporate structure)"Eddaido (talk)21:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Nuffield, I don’t agree that anything requires fixing. My edits brought removed issues that were against the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Mauls (talk)23:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up atthe contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk)21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAxa UK, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAdvertising Standards Authority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)08:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported byreliable sources.Reliable sources are required so that information can beverified. If you need help with referencing, please seeReferencing for beginners andCiting sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

While there are references, none of them provide the level ofsignificant coverage that is required in a Wikipeoda article

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 resubmitwhen they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Elektronischer Schalter 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 toDraft:Elektronischer Schalter, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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 andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

UnitedStatesian (talk)05:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectTransmission owner. Since you had some involvement with theTransmission owner redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion if you wish to do so.PamD10:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Saca logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'mHasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know thatDraft:RTGSplus, 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 requestUserfication 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 atWP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention.HasteurBot (talk)01:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mauls. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "RTGSplus".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, 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, simplyedit 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 atthis link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!UnitedStatesian (talk)18:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'mHasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know thatDraft:Elektronischer Schalter, 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 requestUserfication 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 atWP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention.HasteurBot (talk)01:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mauls. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Elektronischer Schalter".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, 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, simplyedit 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 atthis link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!UnitedStatesian (talk)18:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTomTom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageThe Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is government auction moved back to government auctions?--Geysirhead (talk)14:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well it wasn't me that moved it, but it looks like your edit was reverted because do did a cut-and-paste, not a proper move.Mauls (talk)10:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities tosuperstitions, One of the article which concerns topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.

Thanks and regardsBookku (talk)05:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTimeline of the UK electricity supply industry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageToxteth Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)12:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauls,When you madethis edit toList of police forces of the United Kingdom it looks like you accidentally changed the PSNI budget to "Bu". Would you be able to set it right? I'm not quite sure of how the syntax you're using goes together. Cheers!XAM2175 ^(T)13:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using anedit summary. Please do your best toalways fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial (e.g. politics pages, which I notice you edit) edits. Thanks!{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk20:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLongdendale Bypass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCampaign for Better Transport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to be browsing the page and noticed a section on West Papua I feel should be removed. Its only tangentially related, is written as a current event, and is in part copy pasted directly from an Indonesian news organisation's website that is also it's only source. I'd have tried to tag it for relevance but I've never edited pages before (and I think it's protected?).49.199.114.251 (talk)13:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using anedit summary. Please do your best toalways fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks!Curb Safe Charmer (talk)11:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 July 2021,In the news was updated with an item that involved the articleLiverpool Maritime Mercantile City, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on thecandidates page. – Muboshgu (talk)03:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedA38 road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageJohn Ogilvy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission appears toread more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from aneutral point of view, and should refer to a range ofindependent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia'sverifiability policy and thenotability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 resubmitwhen they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation 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 toDraft:International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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 andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖07:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAudit Commission (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageThe Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedEnvironment Agency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRiver Esk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedSMD LED, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDegree.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)05:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Mauls: first of all I would like to thank you for the revisions you made to the article aboutFerrovie dello Stato Italiane, especially regarding the paragraph about the Viareggio train derailment, which contained inaccurate information not supported by sources, as you highlighted.

I also wanted to talk to you about another aspect related to the changes made. Since January 2018, Anas has actually been fully controlled by FS Italiane, as shown both on the respective websites of the two companies (here andhere) and by the following third-party sources:

• https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2017/04/14/anas-fs-merger-boosts-investments-delrio-2_c3879de2-aefc-47b4-9f43-5fc080464d9c.html
• https://www.repubblica.it/economia/2018/01/18/news/fs-anas_via_libera_dell_antitrust_e_firmata_la_fusione-186761513/

At this point, the paragraph concerning the company that was present in the Subsidiaries section should therefore be reinstated or, alternatively, we should find the best way to relocate the information within the article. I rely on your judgement...let me know ;)

Thank you again for your work to improve the article :)Claudia Frattini (talk)10:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m new(-ish), learning slowly, and mostly limited to handheld-device editing for now.* Could you please fix the new corrected Senate historical link I tried to insert? *I should have more device options soon. Thanks so much!Left Central (talk)18:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I know how difficult editing on a phone can be!Mauls (talk)20:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup! Muchisimas gracias! 非常感谢 شكرا جزيلاLeft Central (talk)15:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedUEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSugar daddy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedList of trolleybus systems in Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRomea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articlePrivy Councillor with responsibility for the Crown Dependencies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privy Councillor with responsibility for the Crown Dependencies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AusLondonder (talk)14:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ship begin has beennominated for merging withTemplate:Infobox ship. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Primefac (talk)13:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLetters Patent (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRegius Professor of Greek.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedViktor Yanukovych, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageUAH.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the Bill of Rights is technically dated to 1688 (due to backdating, and the fact that beginning of the legal year was still 25 March) but we should be consistent and comply withWP:SURPRISE. The link goes to the main pageBill of Rights 1689 , and readers not familiar with English dating oddities are going to think that one of the dates is wrong. Wikipedia seems to have settled on 1689 as the most common usage (a note to the article actually says that), and across the encyclopedia we have ten times more occurrences of "Bill of Rights 1689" than of "Bill of Rights 1688". Happy to discuss further on on talk page if you feel the need.MichaelMaggs (talk)11:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have recently tried to expand the lists of Acts of Parliament.

The templates you are using were designed for Twentieth Century Acts. Those templates are presently useless for pre-1896 Acts. Most pre-1896 Acts donot have short titles. (Some of those Acts have a popular title. Some of those Acts only have a long title.) Accordingly, you cannot use a template that says "short title" for Acts that do not have a short title. You should either modify the template so that it does not say "short title", or you should stop using the template. (Changing the heading "short title" to "short title or popular title or subject matter" or to "short title or other name or subject matter" or to "name or subject matter" might solve this problem).

You have inserted unreferenced claims that certain Acts have been repealed. Please do not insert unreferenced claims of repeals into these lists. Some pre-1922 Acts that have been repealed in the United Kingdom are still in force in the Republic of Ireland or in present or former colonies etc. Such Acts should probably not be placed in a red-coloured box. They should probably be described as repealed by the particular Act that repealed them, and should probably not just labelled as "repealed" in a way that gives no indication of the extent of the repeal.

You have inserted unreferenced claims to the effect that all pre-1793 Acts received royal assent at the start of the session. While such Acts did come into force retroactively with effect from the start of the session, that does not mean that they necessarily received royal assent on that date. Since the date of royal assent is not endorsed on pre-1793 Acts, please do not insert unreferenced claims about the date of royal assent of pre-1793 Acts.

You are rapidly making these listsWP:TOOBIG. Shorter lists, including, in at least some cases, annual or session lists, are needed, but they need to be created one at a time with accurate and completely referenced content. (I am going to try to WP:SPLIT these lists soon.)

Many of the names currently given in the lists are unverifiable neologisms coined by Wikipedians. All the unreferenced names in the pre-1896 lists need to actually be verified with at least one reliable source. It is important that unreferenced material is not added to the listsbefore this is done (because it would make the problem of unreferenced material worse).James500 (talk)15:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to amend the template if you have suggestions as to better table headings; but I disagree that the template is 'useless': it allows for the lists of acts to be made into better, sortable lists and the long titles and dates of royal assent to be added.

The date of the start of session is clearly labelled as such as a substitute for the date of royal assent where it hasn't yet been found. It is clearly labelled with a footnote to to avoid it being mistaken for the date of royal assent.

I have split some of the pages - they already suffer from TOOBIG - but again, it is work in progress. Feel free to do some splitting yourself.

Finally, I didn't add the existing short names in the lists, I am merely adding them into a template that allows more details to be added.

Mauls (talk)20:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The template is useless in its present form because it violates WP:V and WP:NOR to describe a popular title (or the made-up fake names in some of the entries in the lists) as a short title. (We can verify with law books that short titles are created by statute to facilitate the citation of Acts in legal documents, whereas popular titles are not). It does not matter what features the template has if it violates our core policies.

The template is so complicated that I do not have the faintest idea how to change the template. That is part of the problem with the template. If you are the one adding a template to a page, it is your responsibility to make sure that it works properly.

The date of the start of session isnot clearly labelled as a substitute for the date of royal assent where it hasn't yet been found. The only labels are "royal assent" and "start of session". Anyone reading those pages would think that you were saying that the all Acts passed in the session in question received royal assent on the first day of that session.

I would be grateful if you don't split the lists without either fixing or removing the templates first.James500 (talk)21:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issues you cited with the template, yet I notice you did mass reversions of my edits anyway, including removing fully cited content, and content I had merely reformated. I have undo these. I would be grateful if you would not do further undiscussed reversions.Mauls (talk)16:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the issues that weren't directly with the template, but were with content, I'm removing the 'repealed' flags that make the boxes red, except where the repealing legislation is cited. This will take me a while to complete. I've also completed an initial round of article splitting, to address your complaint of TOOBIG.Mauls (talk)19:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have added large numbers of unreferenced claims that Acts of Parliament have been repealed. WP:V requires that these claims be supported by inline citations. Please do not add any further uncited claims of repeals. Please either add inline citations to support the claims of repeals, or remove the claims.

Further, you are splitting pages with the unreferenced claims included. This makes it impossible to revert the pages to a "clean" version without the uncited material. Please stop doing that. Take the unreferenced material outbefore you split the page, not after. The lists for the 1840s to the 1870s still contain massive numbers of these unreferenced claims, which you restored today in violation of WP:V and still have not dealt with, and which I cannot deal with because you have split the page. On this point, I refer you to WP: BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.James500 (talk)01:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, I have undertaken to remove the currently uncited repeal flags, but it takes a little while to to.Mauls (talk)16:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the point ofWP:STATUSQUO, you may want to read that. You went against it by starting a discussion with me, and then mass reverting pages (without discussion) to a point other than the start of the discussion. It is quite clear inWP:STATUSQUO that tagging and discussion are the route, not the behaviour you exhibited. You'll also note thatWP:BRD refers toWP:ROWN - revert only when necessary – which this clearly wasn't. I'm had demonstrated I was happy to work through issues.Mauls (talk)16:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the private Acts section of list for 1879, you inserted a large number of verifiably and demonstrably factually inaccurate claims:

(1) You inserted false chapter numbers that were not the real chapter numbers of the Acts.

(2)You inserted false dates that were neither the date of royal assent or the start of the session.

(3) You inserted false claims that chapters 5 and 7 were unrepealed in the Republic of Ireland. (They were repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 2012).

Please do not insert any further false claims into articles. These unverifiable claims are a violation of WP:V.

When I tried to add the correct dates of royal assent, your templates completely stopped working and refused to accept the correct dates. (The template claimed that there was a "Lua error in mw.lua at line 143", whatever that means). Please fix your template so that it does not do that.James500 (talk)04:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you let me know what the issues are with the dates of royal assent - which acts and what they need changing to (and any source to cite) then I will try making the changes and see if I get any errors.Mauls (talk)16:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Logo of the CAC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Zimbabwe Cycling Federation (emblem).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)03:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleItalian Cycling Federation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Cycling Federation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PaulGamerBoy360 (talk)03:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Logo of the FCI.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageGreg Dyke, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)08:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedIndustrial school (Ireland), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageIndustrial school.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageBlack Country Living Museum, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL andmissing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)23:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageSaint Helena, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)22:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mauls!

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

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

Sent byZippybonzo usingMediaWiki message delivery (talk) at07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are right in your correction atLand Tax (England) but the volume of Ruffhead listed in the citations runs out at9 & 10 Will. III c.45. Have you located Volume 4 online? (because on past experience it will take hours to find it).

Not a priority, I'm just intrigued by the difference. How did it arise? How do we know which is correct?𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)20:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a copy of the relevant volume here:https://archive.org/details/statutesatlarge31britgoog/page/n17/mode/2up (that page is the index list of 10 & 11 Will 3. Chronlogical Table of the Statutes also shows the mapping between the two sets of citations. In any event, it was still wrong, as it is c. 9 in both series, not c. 10. So I've fixed that now too.Mauls (talk)22:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauls, I just wanted to let you know that I haveadded theautopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in thenew pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have beenrequested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload ofnew page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevantWikiProject templates,stub tags,categories, andincoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such asRater andStubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia'score content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become anew page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk)05:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageWar cabinet, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL andmissing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)13:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Move Article to List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 2023 again the current title List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 2023 matches all other articles on the subject (which is the template used for the Article) your move has being reversed if you move it again it will be reversed again, i created the article from the 2022 article and it matched the title of that article so leave it.Demonguy1990 (talk)06:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved following discussion on the talk page. All the articles are being gradually moved to the correct capitalisation.Mauls (talk)09:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rethis - is there actually an official short title? I can't say I've seen it called the title you've moved it to.DuncanHill (talk)12:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It literally has a citation in the article... Short Titles Act 1896.Mauls (talk)12:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.DuncanHill (talk)12:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not need to keep changing links as you have donehere and in so many other edits. In fact it is discouraged. SeeWP:NOTBROKEN.DuncanHill (talk)23:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not aWP:NOTBROKEN.. I'm changing the display text.Mauls (talk)23:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why do it? What's the point? You fill up watchlists with pointless edits that do not improve anything.DuncanHill (talk)23:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider my edits pointless.Mauls (talk)23:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also use edit summaries on all your edits? I can't read your mind to understand what you're doing, otherwise.Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageTrinidad and Tobago passport, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL andmissing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)13:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this afternoon you moved a large number of UK statutory instrument articles to new locations, to eliminate the definite article. So, for example, you movedThe Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 toHealth Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. Before making such a large number of changes without notice, it would have been better had you raised the point for discussion. All of those articles correctly start with the definite article perWP:DEFINITE andWP:THE as "The" is part of a proper name, and is an essential part of the official name of the statutory instrument itself. All modern statutory instruments start with the word "The" - see for exampleList of statutory instruments of the United Kingdom, 2020. You would have been correct in respect of primary legislation, which typically do not include "The", but not for statutory instruments, which do. Would you be good enough to self-revert please. Many thanks,MichaelMaggs (talk)17:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The names donot include "The" as part of the proper name. See for example,https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/1/made, where it states "These Regulations may be cited as the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 and come into force at 1:00 p.m. on 26th March 2020." (note lower-case 'the'). This is identical to modern primary legislation, for examplehttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/218 ("This Act may be cited as the Equality Act 2010."). As perWP:DEFINITE, the article titles were wrong, and the moves were correct.Mauls (talk)17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That tells you how the SI "may be cited"; it doesn't define the title. The full title is set out at the very top of the instrument on the first page of the Queen/King's Printers version available as a pdf under the 'More resources' menu item of the page you've linked to. This isdifferent from virtually any primary legislation egEquality Act 2010 where the official title does not include "The". You haven't addressed that.WP:DEFINITE andWP:THE are clear that "The" should be retained when part of the proper name, as here. All of those articles were very carefully named, correctly, from the start.MichaelMaggs (talk)18:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those clauses in the SIs and Acts literally define the titles. The moves were correct, and the original names were incorrect.Mauls (talk)18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those clauses in the SIs and Acts literally define the title. What is your legal basis for saying that? Citation needed please.MichaelMaggs (talk)MichaelMaggs (talk)18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example,https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2317/schedule/8/made "The title to the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility (Amendment) Regulations 2009 made on 2nd April 2009, and registered with serial number 876, becomes the "Public Service Vehicles Accessibility (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2009". No definitive article, and amends the citation clause. The Queen's Printer's title is just their stylistic rendering. If you want to claim otherwise, then provide your citation.Mauls (talk)18:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that example does support your case. If I had the time I'd research your "just their stylistic rendering" comment, but to be honest it's not worth the effort for a minor Wikipedia convention.MichaelMaggs (talk)18:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauls, I thought you might be able to advise on this? I've been working on theRobert Hooke article to get it up to GA standard. HistorianLisa Jardine refers to an Act of Common Council of April 1667, which I can't find in theList of acts of the Parliament of England for that year. But I have an impression that theCourt of Common Council of London was a form of devolved government, so maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? or maybe it is an "act", not an "Act"? For the moment, I'veWP:EGGed it a bit as [[Court of Common Council|Act of Common Council]]  :

Hooke was closely involved with drafting anAct of Common Council (April 1667), which set out the process by which the original foundations would be formally recognised and certificated.^[1] HistorianLisa Jardine writes "in the four weeks from the 4th of October, Hooke helped map the fire-damaged area, began compiling a Land Information System for London, and drew up building regulations for an Act of Parliament to govern the rebuilding".^[2]

so that bothers me a little. In the overall scheme of things, it is trivial issue but it provokes my curiosity. Any suggestions?𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)11:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on the second part - acts of Common Council were the devolved legislation of the City of London. They weren't acts of Parliament.Mauls (talk)22:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedList of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageEuropean Communities Act 1972.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)13:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you foryour contributions toWikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have anedit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may bequite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With aWikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by settingPreferences →Editing →Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.Thanks!Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)14:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mauls. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:39 Geo. 3 Public 1798, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)15:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Logo of Scottish Cycling.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleGuam Cycling Federation has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, no evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.AusLondonder (talk)10:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please subst the{{anchor}} template as recommended on the template page, if you're going to keep including them in section headings.Nthep (talk)12:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedElizabeth Cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRoyal warrant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)18:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Logo of COPACI.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauls, while readingList of acts of the Parliament of Great Britain from 1776 I noticed that most entries are colored red, while some are colored grey. I don't see this color system explained anywhere. Do you know what the colors mean? If you do, it would be great if you could add an explanation to that list and the other related lists that use the same color system. Best,Toadspike[Talk]13:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the template field "repealed" is set to "y" then it colours the entry red: it indicates that the act is repealed. It could probably do with some suitable text in the preamble at the top of the page.Mauls (talk)16:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it your intention to dothis for every time that an authorising Act is mentioned? There are an awful lot of them; see for example

• Marshall, John (1970). "Appendix 2: Acts of Parliament relating to the LYR".The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, volume 2. Newton Abbot:David & Charles. pp. 279–297.ISBN 0-7153-4906-6.

I've not counted them all, but for the Preston and Wyre Railway alone, there are twelve Acts listed - and that's not counting those improvements to the P&WR that were authorised by L&YR or LNWR Acts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)22:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions toTurnpike trusts in North East England. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit has no sources.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information atHelp:Unreviewed new page.When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.Boleyn (talk)21:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTurnpike trusts in the West Midlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageWest Midlands.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)20:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that youoften edit without using anedit summary. Please do your best toalways fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box inyour preferences. Thanks!Danners430 (talk)12:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mauls I'm noticing you're continue to make edits, such as atSouth Staffordshire Railway, without edit summaries - please provide them if you can. On mobile, the edit summary box is still present.Danners430 (talk)13:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still almost no edit summaries... what is needed to persuade you that edit summaries are needed?Danners430 (talk)12:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regardingthis revert - you have reintroduced an accessibility issue. Basically, it's now 45 or so separate five-item lists, instead of a single list of 224 or so items. Whether a list is horizontal or vertical,WP:LISTGAP applies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)21:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTGAP quite explicitly says it applies to "bulleted vertical lists". For accessibility issues for horizontal lists, seeMOS:HLIST. Screen readers read vertical lists and horizontal lists in different ways.Mauls (talk)20:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the emitted HTML. It is:

<ul><li><spanclass="nowrap">&#8199;&#8199;&#8199;&#8199;</span></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1801"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801">1801</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1802"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1802">1802</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1803"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1803">1803</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1804"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1804">1804</a></li></ul><ul><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1805"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1805">1805</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1806"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1806">1806</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1807"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1807">1807</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1808"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1808">1808</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1809"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1809">1809</a></li></ul><ul><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1810"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1810">1810</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1811"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1811">1811</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1812"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1812">1812</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1813"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1813">1813</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1814"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1814">1814</a></li></ul><ul><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1815"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1815">1815</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1816"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1816">1816</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1817"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1817">1817</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1818"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1818">1818</a></li><li><ahref="/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1819"title="List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1819">1819</a></li></ul>

and so on. You have several<ul>...</ul> elements, each enclosing five<li>...</li> elements. Every time there is a</ul> tag that is followed by a<ul> tag, that indicates the end of one list and the start of another: screen reader users will hear something along the lines of "End of list. List of five items. First item" etc., and that stop-start is fundamentally what LISTGAP is about.

Whether lists are presented horizontally or vertically makes absolutely no difference to screen readers, that is visual presentation for sighted readers, and is governed by thehlist class on the<td>...</td> element that encloses these lists. The relevant rules from the associated style sheet are:

.mw-parser-output.hlistul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output.hlistli{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output.hlistli::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output.hlistli:last-child::after{content:none}

Of these four rules, three do nothing that a screen reader might process - the only one that might affect a screen reader is thecontent:" · " declaration in the third rule, and even there it might be ignored just as margin, padding etc. are ignored by screen readers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)21:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are deliberately split into blocks of five though.Mauls (talk)09:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)16:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because a single list of 224 items made it difficult to locate items. It's a navigation box; you don't want the whole list, you're looking for specific items.Mauls (talk)09:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Lists of years in sidebars. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)16:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was changed from a previous continuous list, into groups of five, then into larger groups of 20 of those (so 100) as that speeds location of items. I would imagine that having a screen reader read out a sequence of 224 individual years in ascending order, before any page content (and potentially the collapsed lists too) would an accessibility issue in itself, or at best extremely tedious.Mauls (talk)20:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A screen reader will announce "List of 224 items" before a big list so a screen reader user can skip over them if they want. With lots of lists of 5 items, they can't do that. Screen readers don't care what orientation the list is, just the HTML output by it.Graham87 (talk)01:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, WP:LISTGAP should be amended. It very explicitly says vertical bulleted lists, and there is an entirely separate item for horizontal lists.Mauls (talk)18:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedGeneral Service Enlistment Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageLegislative Council of India.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)20:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageLondon and Birmingham Railway, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• Abare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)10:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Logo of Cycling Ireland.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regardingthis edit. In that, I count 27 instances of{{abbr|L&CR|Lancaster and Carlisle Railway}}, 20 instances of{{abbr|N&CR|Newcastle and Carlisle Railway}} and 16 instances of{{abbr|M&CR|Maryport and Carlisle Railway}}. Where doesMOS:ACRO say to use{{abbr}} repeatedly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)21:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Upon re-use in a long article, the template can be used to provide a mouse-over tooltip, giving the meaning of the acronym again without having to redundantly link or spell it out again.”

Mauls (talk)08:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once or twice in the article, perhaps. Not every single time in a paragraph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)09:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ACRO doen’t say that; that’s not how they work, because then the reader has to hunt for the abbreviation with the expansion. They’re tooltips, they don’t affect the article text.

There is a real issue with the scattergun and excessive use of abbreviations throughout these articles, leading to very poor readability, but that requires a lot more fixing.

Mauls (talk)10:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#The abbr template - how often? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardingthis and similar reverts. I did not remove "all abbr templates" - I removed the second and subsequent, leaving one in each section. This is in accordance withWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations/Archive 6#The abbr template - how often?, in which you participated. There is absolutely no need to have{{abbr|PPR|Portpatrick Railway}} 37 times,{{abbr|G&SWR|Glasgow and South Western Railway}} 26 times, nor{{abbr|CR|Caledonian Railway}} 14 times. Atone point, you have{{abbr|PPR|Portpatrick Railway}} five times in thesame paragraph, which is seriously overdoing it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)22:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in the conversation, and I disagreed. That conversation was inconclusive (there was only one other comment). Also, whilst you leftsome you absolutely did not leave "one in each section" - you left it as in this edithttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portpatrick_and_Wigtownshire_Joint_Railway&oldid=1261762004 and there are several sections, and several abbreviations where you removed every single instance.Mauls (talk)12:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sections, which abbreviations? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)20:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as one quick example, every instance of PPR in “Portpatrick Railway: operation to 1863”.Mauls (talk)13:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tha acronym PPR is defined in the second sentence of the lead section, in accordance withMOS:ACRO1STUSE. It is superfluous to keep on redefining it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)19:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said"I did not remove "all abbr templates" - I removed the second and subsequent, leaving one in each section." That was not true. There wasn't even an expansion in that section. The template is totally different to expansions in the text, and is used in addition to it.Mauls (talk)20:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's one here or there when you want to havethree dozen? Please be reasonable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedOxford, Witney and Fairford Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCampaign for Better Transport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your vast body of work on Acts of Parliament. I noticed that as a result of your recent edits onList of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1866 we now have a subheader forWhitby, Redcar, and Middlesbrough Union Railway Act 1866 which in its descriptive text chunk refers toThe Whitby, Redcar, and Middlesborough Union Railway. Because those pesky Victorians had not quite settled their spelling of Middlesbrough, I've learnt that it doesn't pay me to be too dogmatic about this ... it might be one, might be the other. What seems improbable – though not impossible – is that both spellings are right here.

Is there an easy way for you to tell whether it said one, t'other, or both? Even better, is there perhaps an easy way for you totell mewhere to look it up, so that in future I could resolve stuff like this myself rather than bothering busy people with my Middlesbrough spelling obsession? Please advise. With thanks and all good wishes,DBaK (talk)17:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah wait. It islegislation.gov.uk, right? The cliché is true – Google reallyis my friend! And, appallingly – and I am sure you would have pointed this out – it reallydoes have both spellings. Gah! I might need a nice lie-down now. Sorry to bother you, cheers,DBaK (talk)19:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered:29 & 30 Vict., cap. cxcv (which is a PDF scan of the published Act, unfortunately not OCR-ed so you can't Ctrl-F) says "Middlesborough" in many places, I can't find the modern spelling "Middlesbrough". Curiously,Williams, Michael Aufrère (2019) [2012].The Whitby - Loftus Line. Locomotion Papers. Catrine: Oakwood Press. p. 39.ISBN 978-0-85361-542-2. LP244., which cites that Act on occasion, has a note explaining the different spellings of "Lofthouse"/"Loftus", but uses "Middlesbrough" throughout without acknowledgement that any other spelling ever existed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)20:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. The title was from legislation.gov.uk. Sometimes they modernise spellings (in which case I find them, I try to put the older versions in as an alternative title) - that appears to have been the cause here, so I’ve made that edit.Mauls (talk)20:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! Thank you both very much. I'm sorry to have caused you work with my little regional obsession. With all good wishes,DBaK (talk)20:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you have time, would you reviewthis edit toHistory of taxation in the United Kingdom, please? No doubt Legislation.uk would be a better source than books.google.es but I suspect you might like to do proper infoboxes?𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)23:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those acts aren't present in legislation.gov.uk, so the Google Books copy is probably the best available. I've adjusted to be books.google.com though.Mauls (talk)09:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it! I thought I was missing something in my search criteria. TYVM.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)12:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you foryour contributions toWikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have anedit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may bequite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With aWikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by settingPreferences →Editing →Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button.Thanks!Tim riley talk16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of acts of the Parliament of Ireland, 1751–1800 is becoming unmanageably large, and is exceeding theWP:PEIS limit (causing templates near the bottom of the page not to display). You should consider either simplifying the page to use a simple bulleted list instead of{{Act-Row}} or splitting it further, perhaps by decade.--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE)19:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that youoften edit without using anedit summary. Please do your best toalways fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box inyour preferences. Thanks! –Jonesey95 (talk)23:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is specifically in reference toModule:Legislationuk, which is used in over 500 pages. –Jonesey95 (talk)23:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mauls,

There was an unexplained change that you made a week ago without an edit summary. The article that was affected wasRegular Reserve (United Kingdom).

Please can you adhere to theWP:NORED approach. 'Editors who add excessive red links... are expected to actively work on building those articles, or the links may be removed.'

Keith H99 (talk)23:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageBanking in the United Kingdom, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• Abare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)10:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectMain Line Railway Preservation has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 30 § Main Line Railway Preservation until a consensus is reached.MimirIsSmart(talk)03:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauls. Thank you for your work onMerchant Shipping Act 1894. Another editor,SunDawn, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a good day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|SunDawn}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)10:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which? I bet Mauls will know that if I ask... oh wait...𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)00:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTwo Pennies Scots, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesMontrose andKelso.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia.

I just read the article onArthur Peel, 1st Viscount Peel, in particular the infobox on "Mr. Speaker's Retirement Act 1895". There, he's referred to as "Arthur Wellesley Pool". I followed the link "58 & 59 Vict.", and in that article, he's also referred to as "Pool".

Is this really correct?HandsomeFella (talk)09:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was a typo - good spot. I've added the link to the source text into the Infobox now, which is a bit of extra utility.Mauls (talk)09:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isMauls and edit summaries. Thank you.Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)14:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mauls, please respond to questions for you atWP:ANI. Thank you.Liz^Read!Talk!03:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have.Mauls (talk)15:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding and cooperating with them, I appreciate how you handled the ANI. For what it's worth, I get it.GabberFlasted (talk)13:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Mauls (talk)13:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mauls - why have you stopped using edit summaries again?Danners430 (talk)07:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mauls It's less than 4 months since this ANI... and you've stopped using summaries again. Why?Danners430 (talk)19:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]