Spinney Hill

Hi, I've tidied up some of your edits, mainly typos and grammar, please preview your edits before saving. Regards --palmiped |  Talk  10:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Northampton's tunnels page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have I think fixed the [[Northhampton errors - a review by someone who has the source named andrewmartin in the article would be good. Newystats (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Pythio page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Al-Gharraf River page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on Leicester. Apologies if I inadvertently removed any of your material in my effort to get back towards a properly cited article. Regards JRPG (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and re-written the section of the Scaldwell article that covers ironstone quarrying. I'm afraid most of the facts you've added are incorrect. I've gone back to Eric Tonks' book and updated the information from there, so it is accurate. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your edit which is frankly inappropriate. The addition I made to Knipton was referenced and accurate, while yours was neither of those things. Please work towards improving the encyclopedia, rather than making it into a local guide. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Spinney Hill, I saw your comment on my edit here. Based on WP:MOS, US should be used rather than the more archaic USA. Additionally, there were other corrections included in that edit that shouldn't have been reverted. In the future, could you check with the previous editor about concerns you have before reverting, so it doesn't end up looking like an edit war when it gets changed back? Cinnamingirl (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, regarding your revert [1], Soviet Russia is a common name for Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic before it was merged into USSR. Also considering the date of signing the treaty it would be more suitable to use the first flag of it Flag of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic#History in that article.--Staberinde (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the name, there is also an issue at the time of signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk country was named "Russian Soviet Republic", that Federative Socialist was added only in July (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic#Nomenclature).--Staberinde (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. So I removed the link as it's not encyclopaedically about the town. The church has its own article and the link is perfectly fine there, just not on the article about the town. It's not friends of Brixworth, it's friends of the church and therefore not relevant to an article on the town. Canterbury Tail talk 12:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Spinney, I have to agree with Defacto, even if you find a source to support the things, which you should have done in the first place, there is no way you can keep what you reverted in the article. It is way too detailed and is full of irrelevant things. For example do we really need to know who was driving? Yes I agree with the comment about being near his sister as that was Cummings reasons for travelling and the PM response to it but, please keep it brief. Games of the world (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

When you add comments to a talk page, please make sure (1) that you sign them using four of these: ~ ; and (2) that you insert them in the correct place in the discussion. I've moved your comment at Talk:Dominic Cummings to where I think it should have gone, but you may need to check. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Don't mind that you reverted. If you feel strongly it should be there, I'm OK with that. Just to explain I was thinking of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTNEWS. It's a slippery slope discussing individual branch news of major retailers. Mark83 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I corrected and brought back a paragraph you deleted at the bottom of the chapter above. I think it is much clearer. Any problems, please let me know. John Milner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner (talk • contribs) 06:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are doing good work on this but it still has a way to go to achieve wp:GA (if you really want to do that! Trust me, it took a lot of work to get Milton Keynes to that status). Up to you of course but could I suggest that you create a new article, History of Northampton, hive off a lot of the material in this article to it, and then just have a summary? As the article stands, the current history section is overwhelming and takes the whole article close to WP:TLDR territory. I found that the key is to be ruthless with your editor's blue pen and really make the sections as concise as you can – which is heart-breaking at times and the only way to cope is to create subsidiary articles where you can put the detail. Try to write for someone from Northampton, Massachusetts, not from Kingsthorpe. Best wishes! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

...did you find that edit by user 86.134.165.116? I don't see it in his edit log. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I figured it out. He had previously reposted it along with an item under another one of his sock IP addresses... before an admin deleted it... and before you restored it again. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

What you did "wrong" was to restore a comment posted by a banned user, as his "contrib" page shows. Banned users are not allowed to edit. And reposting of a banned user's removed comments can get you into Wiki-trouble. Not in this case, because admin Jayron posted a disclaimer of sorts. Just be a little more cautious in future. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see you took it down. Thank you for that. :) For future reference, there's this article called "Banned means banned". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please don't beat yourself up over this minor thing. It's all a learning experience. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello – your addition on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxes! is placed within my nomination, and you didn't actually state whether you are voting to keep or delete. Would you be able to move your vote to underneath the notes?   – DarkGlow (✉) 12:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Reply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

A resolution is one of the forms of proposed legislation in United States law. It is not the same as a resolution in Commonwealth countries. A censure resolution is a type of simple resolution in that it only affects one chamber of Congress. https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-process/bills-resolutions Why? I Ask (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why have you spread false information about Marjorie Taylor Greene? I would like to see your sources of the claims you are making. 2600:1702:560:88D0:F52B:63CE:B09A:4039 (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I have not spread any false information. I have merely attempted to make what information was already there more easy to read.Spinney Hill (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. WP:SDNOTDEF says avoid duplicating info already in the article title. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see that but it also says "but don't worry too much if you need to repeat a word or two for context)" I think it would cause confusion if it were left out. It makes it clear that it was not part of one of the 1914 or the 1916 offensive. It could say instead " a battle of the first world war"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinney Hill (talk • contribs)

Since "1918" is part of the article title we don't need to repeat it. "a battle of the first world war" is fine too, but does it make the SD too long? – S. Rich (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so but I haven' re-checked the guidance. It does include the word battle. Spinney Hill (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

You corrected a rather obscure sentence in this article. Actually the original was correct because the statue had been moved to the monument's surroundings. Your wording is much better (thank you). I've just added 'near to the monument' to restore the original meaning. OrewaTel (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why did you change New York City (correct) to New York City (incorrect), and then revert me when I fixed it? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I was more concerned about the other changes you made and it was late at night here in England and I nneeded to go to bed,I have changed the link. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. My edit was to facilitate the creation of a redirect of Global Servants to the Mark Rutland page, as per the protocol for such redirects. I neglected to mention that reasoning in the edit summary. DadaNeem (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Glenister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sherwood. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Battle of Passchendaele#Reverted edit. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. You may have intended to undo my edit on the main article (Battle of Passchendaele) instead. — W.andrea (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just to let you know that the article was originally written in British English, but was changed by User:Sqzx in July 2014. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Noted. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. There's is no page called "Canadian royal family". There's only a section, within the Monarchy of Canada page, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thats as near as makes no difference and there is a redirect to that page Spinney Hill (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey--Could you please add a "yes" or "comment" or, I guess possibly a "no" at the opening of your statement at Talk:British royal family#Survey? I assume you're stating your position is "yes". But, I don't want to tamper with your words for fear of misrepresenting your position and, so, would prefer if you'd do so, yourself. Thanks. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to tag as "failed verification", but I can't see how the Moulton Parish Council page supports the statement? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It says many people who live in Moulton work in Northampton and this has been true for some time have done since the nineteenth century. It also says it is close to Northampton. It is in fact joined onto the town-its part of the same built up area. I think those facts fit the definition of a suburb. It doesn't have to be spelt out in the source. I hope to be able to find more sources for Moulton and some of the other places. This is all a work in progress.. Do you know of a better sources. I do have some books about Northampton wjhich I shall be consulting. I live there (Northampton) and all this seems very obvious. Its just finding the sources to satisfy the "sources police. Do you know of some good sources on this kind of thing? Spinney Hill (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Spinney Hill, I've added some information on the camp/hospital at Woodcote_Park#First_world_war. Please feel free to expand further, it's a significant part of the location's history and there is a plethora of sources about it! Particularly interesting for me, as I grew up in the area! Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see you reverted my disambiguation of Humberstone on John Raphael Rodrigues Brandon. I noticed your edit summary about "shire" etc but it still links to a dab page. The reader may click on the link and not know which place called Humberstone is being referred to - therefore a piped link to Humberstone and Hamilton which doesn't change what the reader sees but takes them to the right article is appropriate.

You can highlight links to dab pages in your edits by going to your preferences (drop down list top right) & going to the gadgets tab, then scroll down to Appearance and put a tick next to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange".— Rod ^talk 10:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes I know what happens when you press a link. My point was that Humberstone, Leicester conveys to the reader who doesn't press the link the present status of Humberstone (i.e. part of the City of Leicester) rather than the status in Brandon's time (i.e a village in a rural part of the county.) Spinney Hill (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Spinney Hill for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Spinney Hill (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spinney Hill, please consider undoing your reversion at Marjorie Taylor Greene. Not only is the article under a BRD restriction (meaning you must not restore content that was reverted by another user without discussing), you shouldn't restore an edit if you are unsure about the reason it was undone. In this case, SPECIFICO invoked WP:BLP, our policy on biographies on living people, one of our most important policies. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please if you don't mind take part in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Chechil concerning the dispute over the origins of cheese Chechil.

-Thank you Lemabeta (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of what you may think the spelling of the category name should be, you have to use the spelling that the category has. You can list it for a renaming discussion through the WP:CFR process if you feel strongly about it, but the page must be filed in the category that exists, and cannot be left sitting in a redlinked category that doesn't exist — so until the category does get renamed you have to leave the page in the category that exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply