JMiall

Thanks for uploading Image:Milford_Everton_FC.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up on the category thing. So, adding a preceding colon to a category wikilink gives you the link without being put in the category? That's handy. Where'd ya learn that trick? — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Only by making the same mistake myself and checking how the people linking to those pages successfully were doing it, nowt clever. JMiall 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, good to know. I'll have to add that to my "clever Wikipedia tricks" notes. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

First have you seen either of these play? If so you would not doubt that Andy Morrell alleges to be a professional footballer and Gary McSheffrey is greedy. I will however find an article to back up this greed as I know there are plenty kicking around. Asmith6 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi JMiall, thanks for all your comments on the Gilberto Silva article. It's going to take me some time to address all your suggestions - so I'll get started straight away. The only thing I'm uncertain of now is this: how many book references do you think are needed in an article of this size? At the moment there are only two, but I'm pretty sure this isn't enough (especially as there are over forty web references). Guidelines which I've read have only ever said "include print references" - but never how many. What do you think?

Anyway - just that question for now. I'm sure that once I've implemented your suggestions, the article will be much better; so thank you!

All the best, GilbertoSilvaFan 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip re the preview button - I think somehow I overlooked that. One question though - what helps you decide when you feel a location or item deserves a separate page ? Strider52 | Talk 12:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice - I think I'm going to have to do a lot more reading up before I start writing. Wikepdia just feels so big!! Strider52 | Talk 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I couldn't find what the "organ on the roof of the mouth" was. I believe it's a Jacobson's organ, but my source didn't say. bibliomaniac15 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've done all your points you listed at this review. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've got the images from Geograph, which licence them under {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It appears I edited without consideration, for which I apologise. Please feel free to revert the changes. - Tiswas^(t) 22:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I found you on the WikiProject Mountains page and just wanted to ask, if you are interested in having a look (and improving) the Hesselberg article. Keep on good work! Tirkfl 09:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for proofreading this article! I am going to look through your questions and tell you as soon as I answered most of them. Tirkfl 07:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I answered all of your questions. I hope I could clarify some issues. I had some translation problems too, which I posted at Talk:Hesselberg. Again, thank you very much for proofreading and maybe we can further improve this article. -- Tirkfl^talk 11:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I had a closer look on the article again, changed the spelling to BE, and corrected some typos. I also corrected some of the issues that you have posted at Wikipedia:Translation/Hesselberg. Please could you look through one more time, four eyes are seeing more than two... Thank you in advance for taking the time, Tirkfl^talk 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

		The Special Barnstar
		I award You the Special Barnstar for taking the time and proofreading the Hesselberg article. Tirkfl 12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you think i should put it in for a class or does it still need some more work. --Sunderland06 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Added lots of citations for scores and league postitions. --Sunderland06 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

1.  Y cited the 2nd paragraph of the foundation section
2.  Y cited 'completely alien to the traditions of the game in England'
3. could not find citation the 2nd paragraph of the Ground purchase section
4. could not find citation The 'Why AFC' section, particularly the quote

--Sunderland06 17:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the feedback! If you don't mind, I replied to your comment seeking your opinion on a couple of issues you brought up. -- Rei 23:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adjusting the table at Gerlachovsky stit. Carca220nne (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

A great, spiffy table. Thank you very much. Carca220nne (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hiking — The Park bylaws say that with the UIAA card, you're allowed to depart from a marked trail along the shortest approach route to the rock you want to climb. It's not quite so easy for them to be as restrictive when you have the card (but they can, the Park management often phrases its comments about visitors the way the police would comment on likely or actual criminals). For instance, no rule prevents an UIAA cardholder from taking a hikers' route to the top of a mountain in order take a more technical route down (which may then need to be abandoned for various reasons), but see above. I'd expect a good deal of snow and ice in May, but the main obstacle would be that the Park regulations don't allow anyone, card or not, even on the marked trails past several mountain chalets, meaning past the Sliezsky Dom Hotel in this instance, from Nov. 1 till June 15 each year. Carca220nne (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would you consider looking over the Boeing 747 article. I'm working with some other nice editors rewriting it. The first revision is nearing completion (except one section) and then we'll clean up the format of the reference. If you look at it, it need not be a formal peer review, just an informal opinion. I'm contacting two people, one of them you. We (at least me) are looking at just ideas for improvement, not necessarily GA or FA. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since this is not a formal peer review, I didn't put the tags on the talk page. You can let me know on my talk page or whereever you want. Archtransit (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, William Astle was the editor of the Stockport Advertiser, and also of the Stockport Advertiser Centenary History of Stockport, see the title page here. The IP's contributions suggest that he was reading the history at the time of his posting. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I believe (from this list you are a volunteer for peer reviewing articles about settlements?

I wondered if you'd be interested in taking a breif look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Neilston/archive1 and give me some feedback. Hope you can help. No problem if not, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Generally speaking, it's both easier and more efficient to use Example.png in this situation - plus it tends to get picked up less often by vandalism filters and such when it is used in place of Example.jpg. A particular robot which moved non-free images from both mainspace and Userspace was accidentally programmed to add the example.jpg to replace the non-free image rather than the example.png image as would have been the initial intention.

The original image you had used was apparently tagged as non-free, and thus was being targeted by the ImageBacklogBot - in actual fact it took me several days to work this out before I realized this was the case - I was curious as to why so many Examples of the example.jpg image had been added so quickly, particularly in Userspace.

As a compromise, I have reverted back to your version of the page, but using Image:Example.png instead of Example.jpg, if this is acceptable with you. Please contact me back if you wish. All the best. Bobo. 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I wonder if I might ask you to take a look at Crawley and its peer review request at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Crawley/archive1. As you can see, Hassocks5489 spent quite a lot of time working on it over the summer, and we're now thinking of moving for FA status. Any tips would be most welcome. Thanks Tafkam (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Peer_review/Crawley/archive1 and read that you wondered if there was some sort of 'standard' for weatherbox background colours. The colours used in Template:Infobox weather and of some weatherboxes like the ones in Crawley and Weymouth were developed a while back, when we were finding a way of having them automatically used in Template:Infobox weather. There are by no means standard or official, but are used in many weatherboxes, as you can compare between articles more easily. They can be found at User:Rossenglish/Weatherbox if you're still interested in them =) Ross^English 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. When you said about other weather data, I realised that the 'rain days' column could be used for any variable, so I generalised it (it hasn't been added to the template, but I've used it in some articles). I've taken a look at the Gerlachovský štít table, and the 'days with' and air temperature rows are now covered by User:Rossenglish/Weatherbox, and so is the precipitation row, except for the months with 19 cm (190 mm) of rain. The issue of high rainfall arose when deciding colours for Template:Infobox weather: the large range of precipitation for extreme climates would have stretched the colours too thinly, so we left it at 0 to 150 mm. If you do want to use Template:Infobox weather's colour scheme, for the 19 cm months, you could use #000032 and white font. I might see if I can extend the rainfall a bit, but there are only a few distinct colours left between navy and black =) Ross^English 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw your name as a review volunteer. Is it possible to review Hendrik Wade Bode? I have set it up here. Thanks, Dr.K. (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your fast reply and for offering to review the article. Please feel free to start at anytime. There is no hurry at all. I am indebted. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for "Applied sciences and technology" subjects for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Facebook is currently nominated for a WP:GA at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Computing, so if you have time, please review it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, JMiall. I am going to nominate the Oil shale and Oil shale extraction articles for FAC. As the last peer reviews of these articles were not very productive, I wonder if you agree to take a look and give some advice and hard critics before proceeding with the FAC nomination? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, JMiall. Thank you very much for reviewing the Oil shale article. It achieved FA status and your review was a great help in this process. I would like to ask also reviewing the Oil shale extraction article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for "Applied sciences and technology" subjects for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Milford_Everton_FC.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you peer reviewed Facebook a few weeks ago. If you have time, could you please take a second look at the article as it is now and post some comments at the peer review? Please let us know if the comments you posted last time have been addressed or not. I would like to bring the article to FAC soon, so any copyediting help would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm looking for a copyedit/peer review on the solar energy page and your name came recommended by Beagel. I'd appreciate any and all help. Mrshaba (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That sounds good to me. Thanks. Mrshaba (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your initial take. I can't get too defensive about the intro because I've avoided working on it for the most part. It will need several more iterations. The Greeks, Chinese and Pueblo thing got picked up in a paper shortly after I wrote it so it has sorta stuck. It seemed to strike a cord so to speak. I've replied to your initial comment on the talk page. Click Me Mrshaba (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the very specific follow up comments. One question, where should the discussion take place regarding the peer reviewer comments? Here? I also see some replies on the main peer review page? I've been moving them to the main talk page but this now seems incorrect? Mrshaba (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good to know. Thanks for the review and info. Mrshaba (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you offering your services in the Peer Review group for Electrical Engineering-related stuff. I was wondering if you'd mind having a go at Madman Muntz which I have up for FA review? The actual technical stuff isn't substantial, but figured it wouldn't hurt to have someone go over it anyway. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, not a big deal. If you get a chance next week or whenever, feel free to stop over and have a look. If not, no worries and thanks for letting me know. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the article should be nominated as a good article. Sorry it took so long for someone to get back to you. Although I'm no expert on volcanoes either, I'm an expert on volcano articles, and this one is great. It really is a work of art, great job! --Meldshal (§peak to me) 20:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

WEll, it's not fully developed yet. But you are welcome to join. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for a thorough peer review of Richard II of England, I finally got around to looking at it, and found it very helpful. If you would like to continue with the rest of the article, that would be highly appreciated. Lampman (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, JMiall. In spring, you conducted an informal review of the Oil shale extraction. Although the article was not promoted to the FA status, your review was a great help for improving the article. The main reason, why this article was not promoted, was a prose. However, I am going to renominate this article after some improvements. I hope you agree to review this article again and help to bring it to the FA level. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi JMiall - just wanted you to know that, thanks largely to your great efforts on the subject, there is now a separate stub category for Liechtenstein geography (stub categories require about 60 stubs before they're made - your work pushed the total up to that point). Well done, and keep up the good work! :) Grutness...wha? 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, could you read over Nevado del Ruiz and give me some comments at its peer review? —Ceran ♦ (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Greetings!
Your recent edit to Replication (optical media) included a link to a disambiguation page. The use of these links is discouraged on Wikipedia as they are unhelpful to readers. In the future, please check your links to make sure they point to an article. Thanks! twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I saw your name on Wikipedia:PRV, and noticed that you are interested in electrical engineering. I was wondering if you would be up for copyediting Stella Power Station, as it is currently a FAC and a comment which has came up is that it needs a thorough copyediting. I look forward to heading back, Fintan264 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much Fintan264 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Was wondering if you could add another picture to the article of Rectus abdominis muscle?Ft12 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is that (proposed) new section intelligible to someone who hasn't read the specs themself? The main article footnotes include links to copies of the standard itself if you want to check it against sources, but just reading what's there would help. thanks! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Got your message about leaving for a week. If you don't have any violent objections, I may just paste it into the article and you can review it there when you get back. We'll see. Anyway, I hope you have an enjoyable/successful trip (as the case may be). 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now that you're back, here's a nudge. I added a second section on bus commands. I'm thinking of restructuring it to put the commands first. The first section would give a high-level description that talks about a transaction being made up of one address phase followed by N data phases, and the various things that can happen, but omitting the signal-level details. Then the second section would describe the signal operations in each phase. That would shrink the signal-level section and make the transaction-level section stand alone, which would probably be more useful to software developers. Any comments? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Edits made, and your comments posted to Talk:Conventional PCI with responses interleaved. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did the merge into the main article. If you think your comments have been addressed, feel free to delete the Talk page section. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

JMiall, as an EE, you may have an interest in GPS. The GPS article has been put up for peer review. We would love to have you review it and submit your comments. RHB100 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There seem to be a reasonable number of sites which claim that Kuhgrat is the highest peak in the Drei Schwestern - [1], for instance. Mind you, there also seem to be sites which claim it's nearby but not part of the group. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, JMiall. One and half year ago you assisted to review the Shale oil extraction article. After extensive work with this article, there is a plan to renominate this article for FAC. I wonder if you still agree to take a look and assist by reviewing it before proceeding with the FAC renomination? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. I removed the sentence about the Rio Blanco Corporation. In general, it is to specific detail for the overall history of the shale oil industry. Beagel (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seeking feedback article I created at Energetic neutral atoms - my first article. Requested feedback at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback but then noticed that most articles on that list are rather undeveloped. So I left a feedback request on the article's talk page. Tnx. Canuck100 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Howdy, JMiall! I've been working on the SENSOR-Pesticides article for some time now, and I've finally submitted it for peer review. I saw you listed on the peer review volunteers page, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look and the page and offer your edits, comments, and suggestions. Thank you! Mmagdalene722 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. Just wanted to let you know that I closed the PR after getting some good comments from other editors. When my supervisor comes back from his honeymoon, I'll have him look at it, and then I plan on submitting it for GA consideration, so maybe you can help there. I'll let you know when that happens, if you're willing to help. Thanks! MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just had a look at your article, and looks very informative. Have made a couple of additions. Thank you for coming on Friday and creating the article - it's really good to see a wider range of objects starting to appear on Wikipedia. Sphenisciform (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps for more specific delineation between actual length and purported length an editor might want to draw distinction between single antenna and multiple antenna examples of useful antenna dimension. I find your page most useful and pleasant to look at.208.54.7.137 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

On July 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ormside bowl, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the picture! Pkeets (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are using {{Infobox mountain}} on your sub page User:JMiall/Hekla. Your infobox used deprecated parameter names. In the near future the template is to be updated and the old parameter names will no longer work. I updated the template for you. I hope that was OK. –droll [chat] 20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. That subpage graduated into mainspace some years back anyway. JMiall₰ 16:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:

• Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
• 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
• Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Edward Proger at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, one more issue on this nomination. Link provided in the template above. --Pgallert (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 21 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Proger, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that nonagenarian Edward Proger (pictured) died of cutting teeth? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work on the Little Langdale article. An entry for that lovely valley is well overdue. Congrats Mick Knapton (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

... and it's really beautiful! And impressively informative. I love visiting the lakes but never knew most of that before. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks from me too, I really liked that article. Whilst I'm here I notice you've not yet had your account set as WP:Autopatrolled or as a WP:Reviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. Cheers and happy editing ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Glad you both liked it and thanks for the user rights additions. JMiall₰ 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

By the way, have you ever considered reviewing articles at WP:FAC? There's a guide at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Some time back I did quite a few reviews at WP:PR. The next task I've got my eye on is to sort an articles for every mountain in Andorra. Maybe after that... JMiall₰ 23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 17 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Little Langdale, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Thing Moot in Little Langdale was used as an open-air meeting place by Viking settlers? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know your a knowledgeable and active user, and Just stopping by to say Hi, anyway. xD Well, am I quite a disturbance to you? --ChristelBlaze14 (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated this for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Knowle West, Bristol/archive1 as I would like to take it to WP:FAC. Any comments that would help achieve this will be most welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I received a rapid response on my query on how to add a simple photograph. But I got completely lost in the Commons. There were pages and pages on beauty, rights, loading multiple photographs, but nothing I could do in the limited time I have. I am not a good photographer. I just wanted to add a simple photograph I took 20 December 196 It's not beautiful, but at least shows him and his wife. You can find and insert it from my webpages. It was taken with a minature camera using 8mm film. http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/gio/personal/1965India/Khajaraho/Scan102.jpg There is also a better photograph taken by one of my colleagues http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/gio/personal/1965India/IrvR/IIITKslides030.jpg

I Have it on-line — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioCM (talk • contribs) 20:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there JMiall,

I saw that you've listed your name over at WP:PRV. I've been enthusiastically editing pretty extensively on Folding@home, and achieved GA status early last month. It's an article about a powerful distributed computing project which simulates protein folding for disease research, so I thought you might be interested. I'd like to improve the article as much as I can, and perhaps even reach FA status, so if you have a moment, I'd sure appreciate any advice or suggestions you may have. I've opened a peer review. Thank you for your time, Jesse V. (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think you win the prize for surprising me with such a thorough and detailed review. I appreciate you going above the "not my level of expertise, but things look all right to be" sort of a review. Anyway, I've responded to most of the issues you brought up, and I'm looking forward to more of your review whenever you have time to continue it. Jesse V. (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the peer-review, could you check my corrections and if they meet your approval could you cross them off? The <s></s> tags work for this. It would make it much easier for me to identify what issues remain. Thanks again for your helpful review! Jesse V. (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Metenolone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fluid retention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've put Berlin up for peer review. Comments would be appreciated. Kingjeff (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for the image update—Woomble would be proud to be portrayed in such a nice flannel.--Soulparadox (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Is your request still open? Please let me know. Thank you, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am unable to access that Evernote notebook now. I don't remember accessing it in 2009 either. JMiall₰ 21:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

So you do not need it anymore? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

If I had access to his obituary and it contained any useful information I would use it to improve the article. JMiall₰ 17:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

Exobourgo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rampart, Saint Sofia, Burg and Ottoman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Whichever it is, I made some comments on the DYK nomination page. Thanks for your work on this article! groupuscule (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Bump! groupuscule (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you haven't been very active lately. I hope you're doing well. If you make it back, add yourself again to WP:PRV please! Thanks. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Been quite busy with real-world activities. Hopefully back soon. JMiall₰ 13:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

Hekla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Incendiary

Isabelle Patissier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Slalom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi JMiall,

you commented on the FAC for Waveguide filter when it was nominated the first time. I have nominated it again. Can I ask what would persuade you to support it for promotion this time? SpinningSpark 20:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to read the article this weekend and make some more comments. JMiall₰ 23:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain why this picture needs to be present on her page? You can't even see her face except for part of her noes and her eyes are even closed! LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I have responded to/fixed all of your comments on the 1988 Giro FA review page. Thanks, Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 00:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've commented or fixed all of the new comments you made. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of public art in Surrey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | >100 sculptures
• | <ref>[http://www.sculpture-network.org/en/home/publications/articles/2014/the-hannah-peschar-sculpture-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of public art in Kingston upon Thames may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {|class="wikitable sortable"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why is the L. C. Miall article retained in /JMiall and not put directly into Wikipedia?

because I hadn't finished it and then forgot about it. As it stands it contains bits of text copied from other sources etc that need rewriting. JMiall₰ 09:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi JMiall, would you be interested in joining the new London task force of WikiProject Public Art? It could be a good place to centralise discussions on the borough lists. Ham (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Those are all quotes from every famous biochemist in the world. Put it back or I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.98.146 (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think I'm trying to pull anything? An article on Peptide T is no place for that large list of quotations on a different subject. JMiall₰ 13:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It sure is if your going to allow a ridiculous Dallas Buyers Club MOVIE FROM HOLLYFAKE to be allowed in the same section as Peptide T. All your contributions are totally silly. How do you deny The inventor of the PCR test that says that no document in any medical journal proves HIV ever became AIDS. He is only backed by the top 2500 other scientists now stepping up. Your Robert Gallo sold out. You and I both know it. I worked for a U.S. Intelligence agency. You are being watched on every mistake you make. You can be held accountable in new legislation being pass for people who purposely remove truth for other means. You need to keep it fair and stop manipulating the truth to fit your agenda. Everything edit you make concerning AIDS is a farce. You also have been reported to Wiki and it's not the first. Your record speaks for itself. No more bullshit because your about to get exposed. Shame on you for what you do you coward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.98.146 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

What fun! So who have I been reported to and can you point me at this record I supposedly have concerning AIDS (as all edits to wikipedia are kept in the history&contributions tabs)? JMiall₰ 08:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Those in charge of the archaeology in the Lake District are trying very hard to reduce the publicity given to the stone axe site on Scafell. If you are in any doubt on this matter, contact John Hodgson at the LDNPA. To quote from some correspondence that I have had with him "... because of the highly sensitive nature of the stone axe factory sites on Scafell Pike and the high number of visitors to the summit, we have attempted to keep detailed information about them out of the general public domain. There are various academic publications which detail these sites and I think that at least one book on scrambling routes may have made a mention, but generally they have been kept below the radar.

The sites around Langdale, which are much better known, have been severely damaged over the years by people casually collecting rough out axes. We hope to avoid this happening at the Scafell axe factories and I would therefore be very grateful if you would avoid mentioning them in your material for the web."

I think you could also compare the number of visitors to Scafell Pike and to Stonehenge, then compare the security arrangements to protect the two sites. The problem with putting the word "Scafell" in the article is that it gives ammunition for a Google search. Wikipedia is often the first stop for information - so if you start an internet search process, you have had a catalytic role in something with an undesirable outcome.

I am all for the free distribution of knowledge, but in this case I think Wikipedia has to be responsible. (There must be other things that Wikipedia refrains from going into detail about.) The reason that I was asked by the LDNPA not to mention the Scafell Pike site was that I intended to put this information in something I was putting on the internet - something that I had put many, many hours of work into. The plea from the Archaeology officer for the LDNPA changed my mind, and I did not include the information.

Please reconsider your position. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have some sympathy but there are a number of problems with trying to censor this. You might want to see Wikipedia:Sensitive wildlife locations for a proposal with similar sentiment that failed to gain much support. Fundamentally you would need to censor the whole existence of the article on wikipedia to have your desired effect – anyone who came to the article accidentally and had the thought that they might try to find the locations would be able to do so as soon as they knew there were locations to find and the type of person who might look up locations in order to visit them around Langdale is easily the same type of person who might then visit them on Scafell. Also if you do a google search for 'Scafell pike wikipedia' then the Langdale axe industry article does not show up in the first x pages of results and I don't think that is likely to change.

So my basic position is that if there are multiple reliable published sources stating the locations then there is no reason not to include that information in the article. I don't think that any of the specific locations particularly need to be mentioned in the lead though (the article could also do with a bit of rearranging/rewriting).

I have no problem with your change of mind outside of wikipedia but one of the major agreed on policies of wikipedia is that it isn't censored. The main area where this doesn't apply is for living people (see WP:BLP) where there is more of a conservative attitude and assumption of privacy although I think a good chunk of the reason for this being in place is to avoid getting sued. JMiall₰ 20:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have the feeling of an unstoppable juggernaut here. I suppose that, because the mention is in an article that is archaeological in nature, it is safer than if it appeared in the main Scafell Pike content. It is perhaps overly dismal to think that the mountain has already been trashed by the rubbish left by "3-peakers", so if people mess with the archaeology, that just follows the trend.

I think the issue, however, does put forward the idea that all Wikipedia editors have some level of social responsibility. A problem in practicing this is that some editors have a much more superficial understanding of a subject than might first appear to be the case. This is something that is encouraged by the "cricket scores" of articles started or edits made. In this particular instance, an editor with extensive knowledge of the subject would, in all probability, have exercised restraint in mentioning a site on Scawfell Pike.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blelham Tarn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pike and Roach. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Good Old Days, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keith Harris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of public art in Wandsworth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Clare. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Samuel Haslam Scott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keld. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Love Party 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/One Love Party 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. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Planning on runnng this without prizes on June 13-20. If you're interested in contributing put your name down at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Someone has asked at the HelpDesk about an edit you made to the Noni Jabavu article. Perhaps you could be of assistance there :Wikipedia:Help_desk#Noni_Jabavu ApLundell (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sorry to bother you again. Any luck with Memoirs for Ian yet? Thanks a lot. Best, jeff-mila (my contact information is in our previous exchanges, but you can also find my on Skype under jeff-mila). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff-mila (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Still no news concerning Memoirs for Ian? Many thanks, jeff-mila — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff-mila (talk • contribs) 06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sorry for being so persistent. I was wondering whether you'd had some luck concerning Memoirs for Ian that contain some unknown information on the Gillets and Noni Jabavu. I have been approached by Jabavu's biographer who is desperate to get hold of the manuscript too. I'd appreciate very much if you could let me know... Thank you very much indeed, Jeff (interpretaceATgmailDOTcom) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff-mila (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello JMiall! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 23:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. £50 available for most Wales destubs. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply