User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Say Hi,

Say hello if you visited here. Aguyintobooks (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

archive SineBot (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC) archive Aguyintobooks (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

archive A Guy into Books (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Plymouth

archive SMALLJIM  12:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC) archive Aguyintobooks (talk)

AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suydam House

Your recent edits

archive SineBot (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

archive A Guy into Books (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Listed Buildings in Cornwall (New Pages) for deletion

archive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC) archive. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Smyrna

Hi! I am in the position, having written the article on Tzachas, and many related ones besides, to know that the subject is not really something that can be "expanded upon". Tzachas' son or whatever he was in 1097 is virtually unknown, and the state essentially is conterminous with Tzachas I. Constantine ✍ 14:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I see, I will defer to your best judgement on this one then, i think it would be nice to add more about the state, but i cant find any scope to do so, i agree this is a case of best as can be done given the evidence. Also good idea on the disambiguation page.A Guy into Books (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I borrowed {{Template: User Lawyer}} Thanks to User: Aguyintobooks. I do not add inform to my WP:User page much, and I wanted to give credit where credit is due. WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually considered altering the existing userbox to replace it with this one, but then i thought people might not appreciate having a new userbox style forced onto them, this template will automatically define the users name based on what page its put on, but you can add

 |comment = name here 

to use anything else. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I did create the Dobos torte template. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to find somewhere where i can get a Dobos, it looks delicious :) A Guy into Books (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bert Biscoe

The article Bert Biscoe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
96		Launceston, Cornwall (talk)	Add sources
23		Christianity in Cornwall (talk)	Add sources
20		Tywardreath (talk)	Add sources
78		Georges Méliès filmography (talk)	Add sources
2		Johannes Nobel (talk)	Add sources
494		Truro (talk)	Add sources
158		Chen Shui-bian (talk)	Cleanup
81		Poldark Mine (talk)	Cleanup
23		Thomas Grenville (died 1513) (talk)	Cleanup
14		Rashleigh family (talk)	Expand
6		2003 in organized crime (talk)	Expand
33		Writing assessment (talk)	Expand
4		Manor of Orleigh (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,550		Sun Yat-sen (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
10		Dowsby (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
63		Historical marker (talk)	Merge
308		Soundproofing (talk)	Merge
47		Charles Causley (talk)	Merge
297		Coco (folklore) (talk)	Wikify
13		Francis Bassett (talk)	Wikify
7		Guqin aesthetics (talk)	Wikify
6		Index of Cornwall-related articles (talk)	Orphan
6		Designation (heritage assets) (talk)	Orphan
9		Karen Dionne (talk)	Orphan
8		An Hallucinated Alchemist (talk)	Stub
15		Halayudha (talk)	Stub
3		Withielgoose (talk)	Stub
6		Mahīdhara (talk)	Stub
21		Four Sages (talk)	Stub
19		Hermann Oldenberg (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Moving pages

Re: the Charlie Gard move, for future reference, please don't make undiscussed moves that might be contentious. Only do so if you're reasonably sure no one will mind, and for anything else, open an WP:RM. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I did ask first, and nobody minded. nevertheless I have started a move request as suggested since you have moved it back. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

links

• Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy
• User:Kudpung/Anti vandal centre
• Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit

Proposed deletion of 1946 New Years Honours (Commander of the Order of the British Empire)

The article 1946 New Years Honours (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Schwede66 05:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 1946 New Years Honours (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1946 New Years Honours (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1946 New Years Honours (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) 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. Schwede66 23:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Historic England Logo (fair use).jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bert Biscoe for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Biscoe 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. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Pakistani universities that offer LLB courses for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Pakistani universities that offer LLB courses is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pakistani universities that offer LLB courses 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. Greenbörg (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Cornwall places

Please don't change the "Cornwall, England, UK" formula used in Cornish place articles - this was a compromise worked out to stop both the extreme Cornish nationalists and the extreme anti-Cornish editors who periodically wreak havoc on Cornish articles. It has stood the test of time well. Also, what is this "West Cornwall (UK region)"? It is certainly not one of the government regions in the UK, and is far too vague to be used in the way you are using it in articles. County, then country, is the accepted way of saying succinctly where a place in Britain is. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I understand your point, and I wont do any wholesale changes, but I’m going to disagree and explain why.

• Firstly I cannot see the compromise, including England in the location descriptor seems to only be the viewpoint of the the "extreme anti-Cornish" grouping.
• "West Cornwall (UK region)" is mostly used as an informal term. However it was (and still is) used to group Cornwall Council services after they amalgamated the district councils into their single unitary authority. This mostly affects housing, but also some other offices like [[1]] land charges, and anything which rely on legacy processes. I should probably expand the article a bit to make this clear. Especially as some definitions are what that source refers to as West 1, and others include West 1 & 2.
• "County, then country, is the accepted way of saying succinctly where a place in Britain is". this is my point. County = Cornwall, country = United Kingdom.
• Specific uses of West Cornwall in articles appear to be to try and make the location more specific, do you think this is bad style? I must say it is rather inconsistent.

Obviously I could go into detail about the debate regarding England > Cornwall. but i wont right now. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline covers the "Cornwall, England, UK" malarkey. I think "west Cornwall" is better than "West Cornwall", as the former is simply applying a geographical modifier to the place, the latter is implying that there is some sort of formal entity called "West Cornwall" - there isn't, it is simply an administrative convenience used internally by a couple of organisations. Also, people reading about places in Cornwall are much more likely to find a link to Cornwall of use and interest than a link to West Cornwall. DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Don't you think that a essay from 2007 should be updated considering that Cornwall as a place has not been officially considered part of England by the UK government since 2014? A Guy into Books (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes like that have to be one by consensus, not by you unilaterally imposing them. I will now rollback your mass imposition of your own personal ideology. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Its not my ideology, I was merely following UN placename guidance, and now I find a godawful swamp of bickering over whether a simple geographical modifier needs to be added when it normally wouldn't. I am going to find the relevant noticeboard to discuss consensus with more editors on this, I will ping you the link. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Writing Wikipedia:NOTENGLAND one minute, then citing it as policy to reword articles moments later is original chutzpah, at least. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Its clearly not policy, I merely wrote an essay like everybody else does when they don't want to type out the whole reasoning every time they make an edit. (I do this at work, so its totally natural) A Guy into Books (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, as you did with 1946 New Year Honours (Order of the British Empire). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Essay vs user essay

Regarding this. If you don't want other users to edit it, then it's probably a WP:USERESSAY: "authored/edited by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or its processes". What do you think about moving it to user space? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write it to be policy, it is supposed to be a public essay, if you want to improve it I don't mind but please read the lowest paragraph of the lead in the England article, rather than making conclusions based on the first sentence.

• The Kingdom of England — which after 1535 included Wales — ceased being a separate sovereign state on 1 May 1707, when the Acts of Union put into effect the terms agreed in the Treaty of Union the previous year, resulting in a political union with the Kingdom of Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain.[12][13] In 1801, Great Britain was united with the Kingdom of Ireland through another Act of Union to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922 the Irish Free State seceded from the United Kingdom, leading to the latter being renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Wales is not part of England, therefore England as a independent state by land area ceased to be in 1535, (1701 if you want when it ceased to be an independent state by name). Hope this makes things clearer. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Abby McDonald (Q306889)

• "no idea how that number got in there" - the number is the Wikidata item, d:Q306889. If you add the article's name "Abby McDonald (Author)" to the list of wikipedia articles on the wikidata item, and add {{Authority control}} to Abby McDonald (Author) at the end, just before the categories, the article will benefit from the data acquired from the German article (which wouldn't survive a BLPPROD on this wiki). Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes thanks for that, I suspected it was something to do with the bot-created list, but didn't know what it was. I also managed to make Caitlin Blackwood (Q4088423) before your comment but i will avoid making any more "wikidata contaminated" titles. A Guy into Books (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

to clarify i created the article from the "Women in red" wikiproject list of needed pages. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for crawling over your edit history - I figured it would be the easiest way to find a link to WP:WPWIR (I was wrong), and I got distracted as WP nearly always succeeds in doing. Abby McDonald seems too heavily reliant on primary sources and WP:UGC. Caitlin Blackwood has been deleted before & merged to Amy Pond - there's still very little to separate her from that one role - and what there is seems to depend on hype for former companions of Dr Who. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you on this, however she has at least got two other roles since the Doctor Who appearance as a child actor, suggesting she may go to do other films and is no longer a single-event person (which was the issue on the last deletion). I actually considered removing the Imdb reference, but since it is the only one where the information is summarized i decided against it and referenced each fact separately (from the sources that overly concentrate on her Doctor Who debut, but are at least independent). One thing i was unsure about is the BBC source on her latest role, obviously she worked for the BBC before, but this latest thing wasn't a BBC production, does this make it primary or secondary? A Guy into Books (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(FYI. if you can't find a section of Wikipedia (because the exact named eluded you, and Wikipedias search is rubbish if you don't know the exact name), I have found it is often a good idea to Google it and renter Wikipedia at the correct location. You can still get distracted though!) A Guy into Books (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Indenting replies

Hi there. Just a reminder that when you are replying to comments on talk pages, you need to indent each time you start a new paragraph, rather than just the first paragraph of your reply. I spotted a couple of times that you forgot to do this at the Teahouse, here and here, which can cause confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I didnt even know it was possible:)

but i will from now on.

and make my replies better.

A Guy into Books (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1946 New Year Honours (British Empire Medal)

The article 1946 New Year Honours (British Empire Medal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just an endless list of gibberish - blanked as the page would not load at an efficient rate with all of the useless text there

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

BLPPROD removed

The article you tagged for BLPPROD, Yadollah Maftun Amini, had a reference in it, so I have removed the tag. If you want it to be deleted, please use normal PROD or send it to AfD instead. BLPPROD is only for BLP articles that completely lack any sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 03:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: the only source is the subjects personal site and the article has been tagged for many years. I am not going to rePROD but if someone else wants to do something about it that's fine by me. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from New Year Honours into 1946 New Year Honours. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: What if I take a section of a page and make a new page out of it? I have split 1946 New Year Honours into several sub-pages. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What you need to do is include attribution in the first edit summary at each destination article. Also, it's good practice to place a {{Copied}} template on the talk page of both the source article and the new articles. See Talk:Diesel engine problems for an example of how to fill out the template. If you've split multiple articles from one source article, the source article's talk page will end up with multiple templates - one for each new article created. There's more information at Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Cornwall

I'm disappointed by the amount of basic copyediting that has been needed in the introductory paragraphs. While I'm happy to give some limited help, I don't currently have the time on this site to copy-edit the rest of the article, but I suspect it may need some careful further checking. Good work though! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ping @Ghmyrtle: It certainly does, I suspect the lead was trashed by repeated small changes over principle, I have basically had to rewrite it all to make it coherent. As for the rest of the article, several sections (most parts of 'culture') are barely better than lists, the history section needs the Christianity section (currently commented to make it invisible) merged into it. The economy section is incredibly basic and lacks corresponding main articles. and the whole article needs copyediting and clarification. I am going to do as much as I can, because the topic deserves to have a good article.

Part of the issue is that it is almost oversize, There isn't any room to 'expand', just to try and make it clearer. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but there are plenty of other articles - Economy of Cornwall, Culture of Cornwall, etc. - into which excess material could be trimmed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

mediawiki2latex

Hi, I left you a message here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Book_creator Yours Dirk Hünniger (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

Hello, and thanks for your interest in speedy deletion. I declined your nomination of Mythica because the article did not meet any of the very narrow criteria for speedy deletion, including A7. If you feel strongly about deletion, I suggest nominating the article for AfD. Regards, decltype (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillsong Church São Paulo (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillsong Church São Paulo (2nd nomination) The same people !Voted multiple times. I take it you took that into account. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I did, although that !votes are directly applicable, also i'm not prejudiced to another AfD in the future as it seemed like a pointless argument before the article has time to settle. Whether it is relevant or not will be evident if it hasn't improved over the next few weeks. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Celtic language-death/decline

Interesting page-move of 'Celtic language-death in England' to 'Celtic language decline in England'. I ummed and ahhed about the most useful title for a while. I don't particularly mind the new title, but as a point of fact, Cornish definitely died before it was revived! So for my money, it's a bit euphemistic to call the entry 'language decline'. And Cornish revival has its own entry, of course. Alarichall (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

PS actually, it would make more sense to have this discussion on the talk page, so I'll paste it over there :-) Alarichall (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alarichall: Interestedly this bugged me for a few days also. In the end I decided that 'death' implied permanence and was probably unsuitable given to fact that there are now at least some speakers of Celtic languages in England. Various sources use 'decline' so its a reasonably common name. Also it occurred to me that Welsh and Scottish people living in England can still speak Celtic languages (can't find anything to prove they do actually use such languages in England tho). The debate over the extent to which Cornish 'died' is endless and raging, but generally it is thought (by most) that some understanding of Cornish, particularly the pronunciation, was retained, and is what the revival was built on. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) -  11:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?

Thanks for trying to help with administrative tasks, but as per WP:NACD, it's not appropriate for a non-admin to close a controversial discussion. Would you undo? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: In my honest opinion the article is sufficiently different from how it was when the original AfD was implemented to render the original reasoning for deletion outdated, I would recommend opening a new AfD with an updated reason for deletion. I am not prejudiced on undoing the AfD but would appreciate your input on this. It may also be worth deleting parts of the article if you feel that it is overly promoting a fringe theory, I am not familiar with the 'creationist' issue so I can't comment of this myself. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) -  15:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't the content of the article but the sources available. The sources that the article now includes have been brought up in the AfD. The controversial element of the discussion is the extent to which WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE apply, and to what extent, if any, that affects what we consider to be "in depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Opening a new AfD will simply be a clean slate to relitigate the same question. Your close may ultimately be the right one, but I think the discussion is sufficiently unclear that it merits at least one relist and/or an admin close accompanied by a sentence or a paragraph of explanation, as the close will be controversial either way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I will relist it. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Reopening was a good call. Don't think there's any way, any close, in any direction there is going to be uncontroversial. TJW^talk 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks (and thanks for your quick response). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Aguyintobooks. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Signature

• New signature test. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) -  07:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• New signature test. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Not sure how to use this page. I was not sure about making a page just about me, Craig Ward. I take it that's OK? many thanks, Craig Ward, Baron of Lundie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEdward1 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@CEdward1: you did quite well, I added a header for you, you forgot to sign (done by using four tildes ~~~~ not infact by typing your name).

Wikipedia has a rule against people making or editing pages about themselves, however you appear to meet notabilty guidelines for biographies, so I am happy to make a page about you at Craig Ward (author). You can outline some facts and references about yourself at User:CEdward1/sandbox/articles/Craig Ward which is a 'userspace' page where you can edit without conflict of interest issues. The resulting article will not be quite what you write, since everything included in the actual article will need sourceing. I should also point out that Wikipedia is a double-edged sword, since you aren't allowed to edit the article about you, certain things you might not want people to see there may collect there. This is not nearly as much as a problem as it sounds since only reliably sourced facts can be included, but it is worth bearing in mind. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for you comments, most welcome. I will have a go at making a Craig Ward page, please could you have a look / edit just in case it's too much. Craig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEdward1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Overview of Cornwall for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overview of Cornwall 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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: could you look at response I left on the AfD and get back to me on this. I have basically moved the page out of article space leaving a redirect with a CSD tag on it, I have not taken the AfD tag off the page even though I moved it. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, I apologize, I was off WP for a bit and couldn't respond. But thank you for your attention to this, and it looks like an admin took care of the CSD. Thank you, cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks:) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

3O

Thank you for helping out at Third Opinion. Not a big deal, but when you give an opinion, as you did at Talk:Matrilineality#request for Third Opinion, would you please remove the request from the list on the 3O page? The best way is to remove it before you give the opinion, so that another volunteer isn't writing one at the same time you are. If you use an edit summary something like, "Taking Talk:Matrilineality to give opinion; 4 remain on list." there's at least a pretty good chance that the editor who posted the request won't repost it before you can post your opinion. All of that, however, is insignificant compared to our appreciation for giving a hand with requests. I'm looking forward to your further participation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, If you hadn't pointed it out I probably would not have noticed! Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  17:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲_水 10:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

issue

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding a disagreement between editors. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I disagreed with you on an AfD, so you went through my article creations and started nominating them for deletion. I don't even know what to say to that, especially as one was on an MP. Please stop this behaviour. Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

ok, I will stop. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

After nominating 4 within minutes? This is the pettiest thing I've seen here. I suggest you withdraw them and look at them properly, with the intention of improving, not trying to attack other editors you feel have slighted you. I disagreed with you on an AfD, big deal - I believe I did praise your hard work on that article. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I had a problem with what you did. You reopened the Afd after it had been closed as keep, then said there were insufficient reliable sources and told me to 'only comment if I had something new to say' whilst indirectly accusing me of WP:BLUDGEON.

Basically I was offended and decided to check how you reference your new articles cresations so as to write some really scathing remark back at you, (which I did, it directly follows you comment on the Afd).

I admit nominating some of your (not so well constructed) contributions was probably overreacting/impolite, but there are a few points here.

Firstly you shouldn't be too worried, most your contribution log is very solid, although you don't use many sources, most your articles are inherently notable and I could only find a few to nominate for deletion.

Secondly, I spent about 3 hours trawling your logs and researching before doing this, never assume that because someone edits quickly they are doing it all at that point.

Thirdly, nothing I do is ever petty, I am making a serious point about double standards here.

Forthly, I didn't send the article about the MP to Afd, I PRODed it, It only has one primary source supporting the entire article.

And finally, what is your excuse for what you did, that annoyed me to begin with? surely its obvious I would be upset.

Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

PS. I am perfectly happy to put this behind us if you want to, i'm not accusing you of bad faith or anything, i'm just saying i got upset by your actions. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

'What is your excuse for what you did?' I commented that I felt closing an AfD as keep, when there was an exactly equal number of keeps and deletes didn't seem right. I put this comment on the talk page. I don't need an excuse for that. Why did I comment that I felt your AfD contributions kept reading like new editors commenting? Because I felt it read that way and you had also voted more than once in the discussion. I made an effort to write that you had done good work on the article, if I remember correctly. You also seem unclear on what a primary source is, the History of Parliament is quite clearly a secondary source, and you wouldn't prod an MP for only having a primary source anyway. There was no double standards -

I didn't nominate Bert Biscoe for deletion because I felt it had insufficient references in the article, but I because, after serious review, I felt it didn't exist at all. Looking at how many references were already in articles I'd created would not have been relevant to any discussion. You did this because you were annoyed, no other reason. I'm guessing from your behaviour that you're pretty young, but that isn't an excuse.

After wasting my evening removing notability tags and commenting at AfDs on clearly notable people, when I should have been tucking my kids into bed, I'm not really interested in your apology. I just ask that you do not behave in this way again, to anyone - it's so disrespectful and unnecessary. Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I feel a similar way about your actions on the Afd. None of my tags were unreasonable, and if this wasn't a sensitive situation where I don't want to rub it in, I would reinstate them. However, after double checking the history of parliament site, it still seems to be a trust which is entirely run, managed and with the oversight and review, of Parliament, I thought that makes it a primary source (or at the very least a related source), but i could be wrong. [2]. I made it clear there were offline sources available related to Mr. Biscoe, however as normal, it seems to have no relevance. I have never had conflict with an editor here before nor was I trying to start one. Its not my fault you took offence to my actions. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
77		Camborne (talk)	Add sources
17		West Berkshire Council (talk)	Add sources
10		Nottingham City Council elections (talk)	Add sources
17		Swindon Borough Council (talk)	Add sources
11		Reading Borough Council elections (talk)	Add sources
15		Saint Senara (talk)	Add sources
21		Piano Sonata No. 5 (Scriabin) (talk)	Cleanup
8		Robert Morton Nance (talk)	Cleanup
175		Mentioned in dispatches (talk)	Cleanup
15		Central Bedfordshire Council elections (talk)	Expand
10		Slough Borough Council elections (talk)	Expand
12		Peterborough City Council elections (talk)	Expand
22		Cornish bagpipes (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
735		Criminology (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
124		Symphony No. 9 (Mahler) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
4		Cornish Studies Centre (talk)	Merge
104		NUTS statistical regions of the United Kingdom (talk)	Merge
38		NUTS 2 statistical regions of the United Kingdom (talk)	Merge
26		St Piran's Day (talk)	Wikify
68		Music of Cornwall (talk)	Wikify
7		Skol Veythrin Karenza (talk)	Wikify
4		Livy A. Visano (talk)	Orphan
3		John Hopwood (artist) (talk)	Orphan
2		Helmut Staubmann (talk)	Orphan
9		Isle of Wight Council elections (talk)	Stub
13		Halton Borough Council (talk)	Stub
6		Treen (Zennor) (talk)	Stub
14		Darlington Borough Council (talk)	Stub
23		Cheshire East Council (talk)	Stub
5		Ruthernbridge (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The article was made public before it is ready

Hello, you have just made public a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-Spin_gauge_theory This is not yet supposed to be public, the article is very far from being readable. Also, I have not asked to make this public. How did it happen? Could you please roll it back or at least not make it visible to everyone (I temporarily removed the content as for people not see it). Many thanks! (User:JohnStarling)

Although I do not know why, it had been article for creation tagged (AFC) by User:Legacypac. An AFC is a request for the article to be published. It has now been deleted from mainspace by by another editor and the draft (which is blank) has been CSD tagged. If you want to keep the draft, you will have to remove the CSD tag at Draft:Higher-Spin gauge theory. Generally speaking Drafts will often be published before you ask, you could consider creating a userspace draft at somewhere like: User:JohnStarling/sandbox/Articles/Higher-Spin gauge theory to avoid this. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to clean everything up? I cannot remove neither the original page no the empty draft Draft:Higher-Spin gauge theory and they are still shown in google search? I will start something in sandbox then. Many thanks! (User:JohnStarling)

Only administrators can remove (delete) pages, at the moment, the original page has been deleted and the draft is tagged for deletion. So an admin will delete it at some point. (there aren’t enough admins, it can take a while.) In the meantime it has been blanked. Google still has a copy which is outside the control of Wikipedia and technical to access. Both pages will show as links in Google search for a while (<90 days) but people will not go to the original articles if they click on the links since one has been blanked and the other deleted. When you do want to actually create the article, you can tell me or find someone at the WP:TEAHOUSE, or move it to mainspace yourself. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I often tag promising Drafts for AfC rather than for G13 deletion. Perfectly fine to decline these. The tagging and decline give the page another 6 months for the creator or anyone to fix up before they come up for WP:G13 again. Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Stunned

I have to say I am stunned by your one-sidedness at the Nadal talk page. Where do you see any edit-war by me, and I am the one being attacked by an anon IP. I was actually sitting around laughing at his responses until you wrote something. Boy do I need an explanation as to your view on the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I know what your saying here, I am not accusing you of any edit warring involving you or the IP on that page, I assumed you were referring to the previous one between other editors, (Tvx1 against the edits by James343e). It is hard for me to understand exactly what the dispute is about though. Clearly the IP took offense to your comment: "That talks about his total of majors, not goat". in reference to the discussion about a source, and then you went WP:YMFTT on it. My main criticism is that you engaged it pointless argument with the 'Moronic troll' rather than filing a Sockpuppet investigation, as if you have a reason to suspect WP:DISRUPTIVE or WP:SOCK, you should do something about it, otherwise the problem will persist. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck: I sent the issue to this SPI complaint, hopefully the disruptive IP's you have a problem with will be dealt with. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Long before your post there I had already brought it to the attention of an administrator. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes thats how it came to my attention, I was watching his talk page. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

Hi,

I removed your comment about ACTRIAL at the Teahouse because that's where the ineligible users are redirected and we don't want to give them any ideas. I've noticed you're good at reviewing content, if you're interested apply for reviewer at WP:PERM. Go with my blessing :) DrStrauss talk 10:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss: Good idea, but to follow up, Do you actually know which userspaces ACTRIAL affects? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL only affects the mainspace as far as I'm aware. User talk and draft of course will still be options. @TonyBallioni: / @Kudpung: may be able to shed some more light on to the matter. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• ACTRIAL only affects mainspace. It effectively makes new users the same as IPs were after Jimbo by fiat started the still ongoing trial period of preventing IPs from creating articles in 2006/7. The difference here is that our trial is actually going to end in 6 months, and we will have an RfC on how to move forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• • Ok thanks. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding an Afd closure by you

It is regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Deyo. WP:CONSENSUS is not a !vote count. There were two keep !votes & one of them was WP:ILIKEIT. Second keep !voter provided few sources which mention the subject in passing, along with giving a link of an album's promo. None of them even remotely proves the subject's notability. In fact, it was wrongly relisted for the second time, as there was consensus to redirect it to Sonicflood after the first relisting. And then it was wrongly closed. So, I guess you should leave the closure to an admin. BTW, merge is out of question, as the BLP is unsourced. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I closed as No consensus, this is because there was a roughly equal amount of argument and point scoring between User:NitinMlk and User:E.M.Gregory. I don't generally consider !votes beyond being an indication of what an editor has said. There was no obvious consensus regarding the merge. Having consideration for the fact that AfD is not the forum for a proposed merge, I decided to close the AfD with the recommendation the merge discussion was dealt with before deleting the page was reconsidered. For your information, go to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and organise a merge according to the instructions, you may link to the AfD to start the debate. Additionally the AfD was relisted twice by other editors, so I was of the opinion leaving it go on was unlikely to help. And finally it is not an unsourced BLP, I would never close an unsourced BLP as keep or no consensus, I would either relist it or leave it for an admin to delete. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: P.A. Ibrahim Haji has been accepted

P.A. Ibrahim Haji, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stochastic terrorism

Your close here was procedurally incorrect - see Wikipedia:Speedy keep - The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected.. In this case - two other editors - myself and user:Huon voted Delete (or Weak Delete to be precise) - making your withdrawal of nom not applicable as grounds for a speedy keep (and in general, other than a situation that would warrant a speedy keep (nom withdrawing, no other cotes) - the nom or participants shouldn't close. I'm still not convinced myself "it is a thing" in the encyclopedic sense (though it did make a dictionary or two in 2016).Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No prejudice to a reopening or new AfD, but it would have to be on a different premise to WP:NEO, its clearly not a neologism. I only nominated it all after someone complained it wasn’t real. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings regarding this AfD in particular - but your close was incorrect (regardless of changing your mind on the nom). The two delete votes did not actually cite NEO - but lack of sourcing - but that doesn't matter - the nom is not supposed to close speedy keep if someone else voted Delete. Regarding "no prejudice" - I believe you are incorrect. I'm not sure there is a formal rule here, but it is generally poor form to nominate an AFD again just after one closed. Previous voting also counts for subsequent AfDs - typically one would have to show some change in circumstance, or change in Wiki rule, or challenge a no consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, I believe the consensus is to wait before resubmitting on the same grounds, but new AfD's can follow immediately if there is a point missed in the previous AfD. I am going to reopen it on the offchance someone else wants to participate. (I will update the reason to WP:DICTDEF and strike what i wrote last time.) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mir Mohammed Raza

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mir Mohammed Raza requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to 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 with Wikipedia'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. reddogsix (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Mir Mohammed Raza. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Reddogsix: I created the article less than 15 minutes ago, consider the CSD tag contested. if you want some detail just ask. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	you are a superstar Khaliqayyub (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Destroying existing navigation aids

If you create a new article over-writing an existing redirect as you did here, please remember to add a hatnote to replace that previous redirect, rather than just destroying a small part of the encyclopedia's navigation. It might even be argued that there is no reason to assume that the jewellery designer is the Primary Topic, and that you should have created Ana Khouri (jewellery designer) and made the redirect into a dab page. But at the least you should have made the hatnote which I've now added. Thanks. PamD 23:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Mir Mohammed Raza, you may be blocked from editing. reddogsix (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Mir Mohammed Raza for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mir Mohammed Raza 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. reddogsix (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Marion Patterson) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Marion Patterson, Aguyintobooks!

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

Please provide full bibliographic data for citations (i.e. author, date, title, page number, URL, etc.): The references "Paisley Daily", "Ottawa War Museum" "Women's and "Activities, London, Jan.29, 1943" are insufficient to allow others to find and verify the source. See WP:CITEHOW, and consider using helpful citation templates such as {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately that is all that was available working from part page photocopies from the Ottawa War Museum. I left a note on the article talk page explaining this. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for the work done for Marion Patterson, GM article. Skyewann (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)