Tarannon103

Welcome

Hello, Tarannon103, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Tarastar42 (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

==DONT PATRONISE ME.

Waverley pen

Thanks for starting the article on the Waverley pen. However I redirected to an article on the manufacturers, Macniven and Cameron, and merged the content, since the company is likely to be more notable than the product, with more reliable sources available. Thanks again for your contributions, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

== That was a very silly contribution. The company is unimportant. The saying is.

Speedy deletion nomination of Ninth Bridgewater Treatise

A tag has been placed on Ninth Bridgewater Treatise 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Abu Torsam  18:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Old Weather logo.xcf

Thanks for uploading File:Old Weather logo.xcf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have permission from the person who purports to be the copyright holder.

You are a thorough bigot and part of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Why don't you allow people like me to get on with improving.

I am tired of your snide patronisation.

Over linking

Hello, I recently reverted your edits on the article White Castle per the Wikipedia policy on over linking which recommends avoiding adding obvious or redundant links. As such, it is unnecessary to link common terms such as pound, octagon and others. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Spong and co

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Spong and co, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/wiki/Spong_and_Co.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Spong and co

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

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cindamuse (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Copy-paste - minor modifications of wording are not enough to avoid a copyright violation, you must write completely in your own words. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cindamuse. It may amuse you to delete original contributions to the 'Pedia, which all of mine have been. But do it to someone else not me. Everything I write has been researched, is referenced and highly original, so please don't lecture on style grammar or other issues, but if you have a problem, correct it for yourself rather than producing ex cathedra pronouncements.

Commenting on other editors

Please remember to comment on content, not on contributors. Discussing another user's age or schooling as part of a dispute about content, as you did at User:MauchoEagle, is not a good way to handle interactions with other editors. (Also your comment should have been on his talk page, not his user page.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

MauchoEagle was very unpleasant to my contribution. I don't think he knew anything about Crieff, the nature cure, Preissnitz, hydropathy, the temperance movement in Scotland in the C19, teetotalism, the Church of Scotland (either before or after the schism of 1843). While I agree my response had a modicum of ad hominenism, for which I apologise, if Mauchoeagle is to make a useful contribution to the 'Pedia, he must take a more inclusive and less culpatory approach. I am quite willing to write on a personal basis to him, but he must understand that others take the 'Pedia seriously and do not like their work so casually dismissed. Charles Norrie

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Greaves' Rules. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Cind.amuse 05:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I am scrupulous about commenting on contributions and not persoanlities. Those editors who believe they have been traduced by me don't undertsnad that I stand by all my originial material, which some do not like and wish to suppress,

Proposed deletion of Dumbell travel

The article Dumbell travel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Made up term.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UtherSRG (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a mde up term, but it may take me sometime to find sufficient references. Don't let your prejudices run ahead of youTarannon103 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to West Lothian question. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. I've only just put up the article.Tarannon103 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

West Lothian question has been there for years. You need to add sources when you add any claims to articles. - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you must have meant Mid-Lothian Question. It took me awhile to find it, as the link you had added to the West Lothian question page was Mid Lothian Question. You do need to add reliable sources to the new article as soon as possible. Adding a {{inuse}} header if you're going to work on the article for the next 30 minutes or so might help keep the article form being deleted by an over-eager admin before youre able to add your sources. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I know I have to add references. And I will do as I always do. Do not lecture, contribute. I mend a good dozen articles a day. The West Lothian question is not as you have now realised simple a different location to the MidLothian question. They are a century different in time and of soemwhat different import. Didn't you do any history at school. It wa my favourite 'O'-level question and there in the Wikipedia Midlothian wasn'

If your not careful, I'll have a look at the "Irish question", and put my ha'penny worth there as well!Tarannon103 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Get real1

Speedy deletion nomination of Vdnha

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've ever been to Vdnha, and I don't think you've ever thought about it in your life. I've been, and it's rather like the the old Commonwealth Institute in London.

I haven't finished my editing yet, as its quite hard to source information. But I'll do it. Meanwhile have a go at Crieff Hydro, back gardens, or Greves' Rules or dozens of others.

As an editor why don't you get a life or contribute to teh Wikipedia.

If you try to ban me, you will be banned forever.

Proposed deletion of Greaves' Rules

The article Greaves' Rules has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable, independent sources (past or present) outside of the community of the inventor's journalistic colleagues. No evidence of widespread knowledge or use of the Rules. Seems to fail WP:MADEUP.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LordVetinari (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Greaves' Rules. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Please don't remove maintenance templates until issues have been resolved (either through fixing the issue or discussing it with the editor who added teh template). Maintenance tempaltes are an important part of Wikipedia editing as they add articles to hidden categories, thus helping others to locate articles needing a little assistance. LordVetinari (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Greaves Rules

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've been busily reading external sources to Greaves' Rules. Unfortunately, none of the sources you added actually support the sentence to which they're appended. For example, both this and this source merely list the rules without supporting the claims that Greaves' rules attracted a wide following and exemplified the spirit of drinking in a pub. As for the Russian source, it too doesn't directly support either claim; nor does the fact that it is written in a foreign language as the writer may simply have sourced their information from an English website. I urge you to to look through WP:SOURCES, WP:V and WP:IRS. Incidentally, you may also find WP:CITE useful as it sthe mechanics of citing sources on Wikipedia. Happy editing. LordVetinari (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your behaviour on Wikipedia. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected trolling. Thank you. —LordVetinari (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a troll, my Lord, whatever that is. I serve the Wikipedia well and you seem just to want to cause trouble. I still can't see what you find offensive oe inadequate in my references, so please go and bug someone else. You're not wanted here.

There are undoubted issues with your interactions with the above editor, which may or may not be present with those of others. If you do not wish to have these concerns minutely reviewed I very strongly suggest that you reconsider your past responses and comments, and take on board some of the issues raised with you. In a collaborative and collegiate environment such as Wikipedia the ability to communicate with respect and civility is less a premium than a necessity. No amount of otherwise good work lessens that need. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why I should. I contributed a vaild article under my own name (which neither you nor Lord Vetinari care to do) about Greaves' Rules, which I and other know from many years use. The Lord seems to be from Australia by his other interests, and Australian drinking rules are not the same as those in England. I don't know whether he has come here or not, but I live in this country and know something of the drinking culure. And I've been to Australia where behaviour is quite different. I have experienced it.

The Lord seemed at first to want to delete my article and then said it lacked references. He was not prepared to find any himself (what it the use of an editor who only points out the failings in others and does not make constructive alterations, which can at least be discussed?) I found some and for some reason he dislikes them. I have always treated him with courtesy and respect, and with better fellow feeling than he does me. I am the wronged man.

Charles Norrie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.158.223 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been blocked for 2 minutes, which will not effect your ability to edit the project but will serve notice that I am one of those persons who are provided with the ability and responsibility of ensuring that accounts maintain certain standards of behaviour and conduct; I am an administrator and also an editor of many years experience of contributing to this website. Just to make clear, you are the individual who is not comporting yourself appropriately and are also incorrect in how things work around here. LordVetinari has given you proper notice that your edits lack certain requirements; in doing so they are not responsible for fixing the problem (although they may chose to do so). This is standard practice, an issue is identified and those persons responsible for the concerned edit are contacted to see if they have the resources to resolve the issue. From then on, it becomes a matter of either attempting to fix the problem by way of editing or discussion or of allowing the queried material to be deleted. Those are your choices. What should not happen is for the retention of the disputed content while not resolving the perceived problem, and what will not happen is that the reporting editor will be subject to incivility and petulance - not without the spectre of editing privileges being removed in the future for a longer period than two minutes. Under the circumstances, I would advise you that you should drop the attitude and get yourself a clue on how things work round here - you may be surprised at how helpful and supportive other editors are when you make the effort to work with them. If you want to continue editing the project, you really don't have much choice.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Would the following vandals stop editing my stuff and this page (my dissscuddion page)

Lord Ventinari, who does not like my contribution Greaves' Rules and somebody whose names sounds like LeeHeard van. Both these people are arrogant enough to call themselves editors, and then one of them takes down a discussion they have contributed to. I am used to your sort of type. Normally I have to deal with people much mores serious than you like CIA agents who wish to fake the written record of US criminality. I know all about SV, VC RB and Lockerbie.

Now back off and get yourselves a life.

Charles Norrie

You seem to have come to a mistaken conclusion about a thing or two. I've read through your interactions on the Greave's Rules page and here as well as the report on the administrator's noticeboard. Firstly, you made a comment on the article talk page about Dennis Brown being "appointed to some petty editorship". Everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is considered an editor, it is not like a newspaper where an editor has oversight over what is published. I'm an editor, you're an editor, Dennis Brown is an editor. We all have the same set of privileges for contributing here. Admins like LessHeard have a few extra buttons that enable them to block people, delete articles etc but beyond that they are only volunteers like the rest of us. The core rule in Wikipedia is to assume good faith so suspecting others of ulterior motives or accusations of vandalism unless you have evidence usually leads to an examination of your behaviour rather than others. This is neither a criticism nor agreement with you and your views but rather a passing comment to clear up some misunderstandings so that your interactions with other editors will be smoother in future. --Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Blackname,

You also appaer under a false flag. I use my real name. Having contributed to the 'Pedia for some years, with some enjoyment and I hope the benefit of my singular knowledge to the human condition, I do not take kindly to this sort of lecturette. It reminds me of my rather dim housemaster at school, who was always urging one to things for the ood of the school, the house, and don't just stand there boy PULL YOUR SOCKS up.

When I get pompous statements of my articles, like that on Greaves' Rules, back gardens and Crieff Hydro, I am sorely tempted to poke fun at the critic and do. You seem to be one of them too Blackname. Why do your sort of editor take themselves so seriously? I don't, ad while I have strength in may body, I shall continue to contribute articles (or improve them) that I consider interesting, Why should LessHeard deny the import of his name and have the right to ban me?

Now get a life. When I leave this page I'll go off and wikify another of the 20,000 articles that need wikication rather than picking petty quarrels with so-called editors.

Charles Norrie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.87.239 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Society of Portrait Sculpture

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 Society of Portrait Sculpture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. noq (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Society of Portrait Sculptors

A tag has been placed on Society of Portrait Sculptors, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi, I deleted the above article as it was a copyright violation, being copied directly from the society's website. If you wish to recreate the article please write in your own words and also be sure to demonstrate that the society is notable per WP:ORG. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop posting talk messages in inappropriate pages

If you want to communicate with another editor, you do so on their WP:USERTALK page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

==I shall write on my own page if I wish. If you want to that's your business.

I do not WANT to talk to any other editor.

I am forced to because they vandalise my stuff, like a child scrawling on a schoolbook.

Why did you ignore my statement that the article was not finished. You could quite easily have said that is a copyright violation. I would have replied that though a significant organisation with leading portrait sculptors amng its members there wasn't a lot of information on the organisatioon. There is for example no easily accessible history.

Then you could have had a rewrite of what is copyrighted (if acceptable) a paraphrase or the organisation would go unreported in the 'Pedia because essentially the information is almost single sourced to the organisations own website.

It cannot be the policy of the 'Pedia not to produce an article of a significant organisation because it is essentially single sourced.

This must happen and does all the time. I do a lot of work wikifying things and many are said to be based on a single source and the way they are written are almost certainly quotes. This is particular true of pieces written like and advertisement which clearly contain the original source material.

I get rid of the gratuitous self interest and make them presentable.

Some of these articles are several years old and unmodified, but they have escaped your eagl;e eyed attention.

Now will you restore the article and let me finish it. I will not be happy if I am forced to do it again.

Personally, I think you are taking the copyright thing to a silly excess. It must have been invented to to make it clear that commercially owned material did not appear as a means of avoiding due payments or to prevent a charge of plagiarism.

But a site that advertises its intentions and does not have a copyright notice even must expect the world to use its information and presumably welcomes it.

If when I had put up the article the Society had complained that its copyright was being affronted, there would be an issue.

Perhaps the Society does not even own the copyright to the material in its website, and it is owned by the league of Distressed Genlefolk, an organisation which does exist (I shall check) and if there is no article I shall create one, and if you try to ban me, I shall adopt another persona, but not for any evil reason like Slimvirgin (there are many) and edit anonymously.

I have not heard of such silly pettiness since working in one of the more obscure departments of the British Civil Service.

I give my time for free and you are meant to be welcoming and helpful.

I believe I am subject of a harrassment campaign by a number of petty 'Pedia editors (no names no packdrill) and if ever you have written about or to I charge consider you as charged.

But all you do is ban ban ban and qupte petty rules at me!

Yours in considerable anger, but nothing rude said,

Charles Norrie (as usual under his own name) and not a contrived and silly pseudonym.

And if you ban, I shall set up another editorship and ther ain't nothing you can do but steal my computer.

Now be sensible!

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

It is very simple - there are rules to this website which dictates how you may remain as a editor, and if you do not care to follow them then you cannot edit this project. If you try and evade this block your particular "style" will make you very obvious, and the evading account will be blocked and, if you continue to try and edit to your preferences, you may well be banned. You are one person, and there are many tens of thousands of contributors and hundreds of admins, and this project has no end date. You join up the dots. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mid-Lothian Question

The article Mid-Lothian Question has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Claims not borne out by reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Skomorokh 17:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Watching the English

The article Watching the English has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LordVetinari (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Harlington Locomotive Society

The article Harlington Locomotive Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has very few references and fails 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. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)