Feel free to add your comments below the line. I'll get back to you whenever I remember to read this page.

Hi, Chrism, I've removed your mass nomination of articles for moves from the WP:RM page. I did this because I think it's a little premature. The Barack Obama case is still under discussion. See how that one goes, first. If that move gets approved, then I would just go ahead and BOLDly move the others without going through WP:RM. If that move is rejected, then I would say there's no point in nominating the others. Also, this is clearly a case where consistency is desired across a series of articles, so having individual discussions on each article's talk page is not going to result in the desired outcome. Once the Obama inauguration discussion is settled, then you can move the other articles to match its name format.--Aervanath (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your query on "So Help Me God" change to question form. See the talk site pleaseArodb (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request your intervention. Baroness Cox has not been involved with Christian Solidarity Worldwide since 2003. She successfully sued the Evening Standard for the false article that you now reference. It is a subjective statement to say the film was anti-Islamic. Check out www.worldcommittee on Disability, all of her disability work has been removed. This is libel!!!

The opening paragraph should read:

Caroline Ann McNeill Love Cox, Baroness Cox FRCN (born 6 July 1937) is a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords, and campaigner for many humanitarian causes and issues relating to disability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CofJ (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CofJ (talk • contribs)

On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with these, The club penguin show doesn't fit under G1, and a mistagged article can be bitey to newbies. But keep up the good work on new page patrolling! Regards, ƒingers^on_Roids 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisM,

Im Alex Irwin Randy and i want to ask why are you doing a speedy deletion?! please do not delete it because i am a singer because i sang with T-Pain, kite, Rihanna, David Guetta, Ed Sheeren and D. Prince for real i am there best friends so thanks for reading.--AlexanderPark1 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AlexanderPark1

Chrism, I'm really trying to get this right. I'm working on the page for Christopher Tenzis and I believe he is credible and noteworthy enough to be on this site. Can you tell me exactly what I'm doing wrong or how I should clean up this page? I've read over lots of the help pages, and I'm doing my best, but I feel like I must be getting the formatting wrong or something. I've sited everything I could think of. Thank you for your time. I'm sure you get lots of this. :( Piesandcakes343 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no problem. Δnnuit Cœptis 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, well done! I have been interested in this section and you have done a remarkable job. Though have to add Freddie Starr (very well known, FA Cup Final 1984 especially outside team hotel). If complete I will look for more WITH source Babydoll9799 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again moving theses articles. No necessity to move. According the RFEF and LFP, the official name is Segunda División B Play-Off ..... I will revert your changes. There are not discussion about this. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the title since the creation of playoffsin 1990. In Spain, the play-offs have other name and different system from England. Since the play-offs creation in 1990, always has carried the same name. All people and journalists in Spain calls this as Segunda División Play-Offs and Segunda División Play-Offs. Do not you know you? --Raymond Cruise (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad Chrism. The play-off between those clubs that finished 16th is actually a relegation play-in with the winners remaining in the Segunda B while the losers are relegated to the Tercera! It's just the fact these clubs were from the Segunda B so it does make sense that section is under Segunda B play-offs Raul17 (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we've all been there! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reverting the Jennette McCurdy vandalism. Jeneral28 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you simply put a block on entry of edits from that IP address? PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A source is provided for Shkodran Mustafi's squad number on the Everton article, it's the UEFA link. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Not sure why you replaced the Category:Everton F.C. with Category:Everton F.C. players? AFAIK, he never played for them. Category:Everton F.C. non-playing staff would be better, if anyone could be bothered to create one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor brain freeze, I think I've confused his article with another one I had open at the time. Mea culpa. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It pushed me into creating the appropriate category, anyway :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have an admin revert the main current events page: Someone wrote "I am the king of the World." Thanks!

--66.167.15.50 (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you reversed my entry. Not entirely sure why; couldn't quite get the whole point but basically it seems like you are saying that there are allowed to be opinions in articles. Although I agree with this you can not link to a article that is not written by someon well known and it should be in reference directly to that person. If you are able to link any opinion article you are going to end up having complete untrue things being said. Some of what this article says and is used in the 2010 page is also factually incorrect as the 2010 page states: "the natural sounds of people in the stands are drowned out" This is referenced from the article and is incorrect. Even at the games with the most Vuvuzelas (South Africas matches) you can hear the crowd singing Shosholoza and also cheers when there are goals over the Vuvuzelas. I have also had this on the Discussion page for 3 days and there were no complaints so I changed it. The point that they are irritating to some is also clearly shown by the preceding article that talks about the footballers opinions with all the statements/opinions being linked to their names. Would be unfair of me not hear the other side of the story but this is my point and reasoning behind the edit. Also here was my post on the discussion board:

Vuvuzelas

I find a huge problem with Reference 114 linking to a hugely opinionated and biased opinion column. It is also untrue that the Vuvuzelas drown out the crowd as you can clearly hear chants and cheers by spectators during goals and exiting moments. Also in one match you could clearly hear the beat of a drum echoing around the stadium. Often the sound of the ball kicked is also heard so I think the "Others watching on television have complained that the ambient audio feed from the stadium only contains the sounds of the Vuvuzelas and the natural sounds of people in the stands are drowned out.[114]" comment should be removed; along with the 114 reference. --Tanka8 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry it keeps changing as people edit. The reference is the one to the New York Post. "Valenti, Elio (13 June 2010). "Buzz off, vuvuzelas!". New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/buzz_off_vuvuzelas_FPa9BYlmlRWJMsF1W65cyJ?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=." --Tanka8 (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Tanka8 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article Raghupati Raghava Rajaram should be deleted, specially as it does not have the coverage to merit being one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF. However, as it is one in a series of recent problems for director Shaji Kailas, I went ahead and added one sourced sentence to Shaji Kailas#2000-Present, mentioning Raghupati Raghava Rajaram in context to his other recent setbacks as a director.[1] Might you agree that after deletion, and as readers might still search for the cancelled film by name, that a redirect to the director's section will serve? I also believe a redirect will help prevent an inappropriate recreation of this article. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chrism,

Sorry. I'm not too experienced in editing Wikipedia articles but it seems to me you brought back word "Roman" (which I deleted a day earlier) in the sentence "descendants who had not married a Roman Catholic; those who were Roman Catholic, and those who married a Roman Catholic,"

I would like to point out what is written above is simply not true. If (theoreticaly) Prince William gets married with lady who is member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (not a Roman Catholic!!!!!) can he still become a king? No, because the Act of settlement says "That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever" Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is in full communion with the Holy See, so if Prince William gets married with such a lady unfortunately he has to forget, even though she is not Roman Catholic.

The clause in the Act is about ALL Catholics both Roman Catholics and members of ALL Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome (Ukrainian is only an example)

Best regards Tomasz 62.73.148.164 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response on user's talk page. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you removed my reference to the fact that this offer relates to alleged Israeli war-crimes and occupied West Bank - these are verificable points of fact, not a POV.

Aa42john (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I agree an Israeli settler may respond as you suggest. But Nazi invaders of Moravia or their sympathisers may have regarded that as part of Germany. Are we therefore not allowed to refer to "Occupied Czechoslovakia"?

The report I saw specifically referred to 'war crimes': are we also not allowed to refer to that? (I did say 'alleged war crimes' which should cover the alleged criminals.)

Editing seems careful to protect the Israeli POV, but not the Palestinians' POV - they get called 'terrorist' without even the 'alleged' prefix. It all seems rather biassed to me, and your edit seems part of it.

Sorry!

Aa42john (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly heads up to alert you to Portal:Current events/2010 December 5. You seemed to have inadvertantly removed "<!-- All news items above this line -->|}" from the bottom of the page. The hidden comment isn't so important, but the rest of it ensures that the collapsable box ends at that point. If the bracket is not present, the entire page it's transcluded on (in this case WP:ITN/C) becomes enclosed within the collapsable box! --Dorsal Axe 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a request to add a colon before "Category" so as to prevent the cats becoming live until such time as you move the article to mainspace, at which point the colons can be removed. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed your recent edit to Act of Settlement 1701.

WP:MOSCAPS is not applicable because there is no consensus that capitalization is not necessary in this case. James500 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be consensus that MOSCAPS is applicable per WP:BURO and common sense. WP:MOSCLEAR is not applicable because this is a case where there is a specific focus, and in any event, the outcome of the specific discussion about this "trumps" WP:MOSCLEAR, because it proves that there is no consensus in favour of that either. The discussion of this is here

Thank you for your message.

It would be manifestly absurd to insist that a guideline (it is not even a policy) should apply to a specific case when it had been positively established that there was no consensus to apply to that case. That is what I mean by common sense.

As far as I can see, WP:BURO creates a presumption against policies that has to be defeated by an actual consensus. It has been established that none exists in this case.

As far as I can see, the Manual of Style is written by a vocal minority and actually has minimal support. There is, as far as I can see, certainly a consensus that the Manual of Style has serious problems. I remember a discussion on its talk page to that effect and it is of course still locked from editing.

I do not think it is fair to suggest that I am in favour of capitalizing the word "because I feel like it". In this case there is very strong evidence (I am tempted to call it overwhelming) that the rules of grammar are in fact to capitalize the word in this context, and the sources that were adduced against that proposition lack legal credentials and are not reliable.

James500 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrism. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please provide a source for this. Since the short title is prescribed by statute, it really needs to be a case on the construction the generic clauses that create these citations. I have had this discussion before at User talk:Andrew Gwilliam. I can identify pieces of legislation and textbooks that indicate that the definite article is part of the short title. James500 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the title of that Act is "An Act to replace section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 with other provision against fraudulent conduct; and for connected purposes." James500 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrism. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Even if it is correct for Canada (I observe that it cites no cases), the Canadian source does not claim to apply to the United Kingdom.

Legislation.gov.uk contains errors. In particular, for example, they omit the words of enactment of certain early Acts because these were not included in The Statutes of the Realm from which Statutes In Force was compiled. They also, for example, refer to the subdivisions of Schedules of Acts as "sections" instead of as "paragraphs" which not correct either.

If you look at secondary legislation (i.e. statutory instruments) on that website, you will find that the heading of the page always includes the definite article (which causes me to think that the omission from Acts is probably just a mistake that they have not corrected, possibly because they don't have time). You will also find that the titles of Church Assembly Measures (I looked at the Interpretation Measure 1925) are being printed in block capitals, which is plainly nonsense.

In fact, where do they say on that website that the heading of the page is supposed to be a citation? Where, for example, the calendar year is not part of the short title an Act, they sometimes put it in brackets at the end.

I do not think that paragraph 9.31 of the cabinet office's guide proves anything since it does not say why they are omitting the definite article. For all I know, it might be a mistake, or the product of intellectual laziness, or someone's personal opinion, which, unlike section 7(1) of the Theft Act 1978, does not have the force of law.

If you want a source that has the definite article as part of the short title, try the Schedule of repeals at the end of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or the Courts Acts 1971.

For the avoidance of doubt, the correct citation of an Act is a question of law. It not determined by common usage.

James500 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to refer Chrism to the previous discussion I had with James500 regarding this and a related issue on my talk page (specifically here, here, and here). Unfortunately an unrelated external reason forced me to pull out abruptly from that discussion before a proper conclusion. As such, I will confine myself for now to pointing out that James500 is wrong where he states above:

Legislation.gov.uk contains errors. In particular, for example, they omit the words of enactment of certain early Acts because these were not included in The Statutes of the Realm from which Statutes In Force was compiled.

Firstly, Statutes in Force was based on the third edition of the Revised Edition of the statutes. Secondly, The Statutes of the Realm, the ultimate source for the first edition of the Revised Edition, does not omit the words of enactment. Thirdly, all these various editions (incl. legislation.gov.uk) have been published under the authority or superintendence of the Controller of HMSO, and are thus legally authoritative. Fourthly, I think I'm right in saying that the Statute Law Revision Act 1948 also gave express authority for the omission of words of enactment from any Revised Edition.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I am unable to comment on this. I was repeating what someone else told me. James500 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck that passage as I think you may well be right. James500 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC) I apologise if I have made a mistake. James500 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 9.31 of Guide to Making Legislation says nothing about Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It refers to Bills. [It would be an original synthesis to assume that it applies to Acts]. (words inserted at 00:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Legislation.gov.uk does not say that the Act can be cited as "Theft Act 1978" or that it cannot be cited as "the Theft Act 1978". James500 (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC) The heading "Theft Act 1978" is not a sentence and consequently does not assert anything to be a fact. At best, it is a suggestive juxtaposition. It would be an original synthesis to draw inferences from something like that.[reply]

The references in the three Acts that you offered cannot be assumed "trump" the references in the two Acts that I offered. That would be an original synthesis.

Your suggestion that the non-capitalisation of the definite article in printed copies of section 7(1) means something is WP:OR.

The Canadian example does not mention Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It would be an original synthesis to assume that it applied to those Acts (quite apart from the fact that the Canadian legislation to which it refers is foreign, bilingual, italicises the short title in both its English and French versions, has a very different form in its French version, and is secondary legislation).

I think that answers all of your points, so I am going to revert the article back to its original state with the rationale "original synthesis". James500 (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Good call. I failed to notice that, and unfortunately I believe I did the same in some other articles. Doh! -- Mecanismo | Talk 20:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let me know why you have deleted the entry for thames valley police on the Police ele ctions page?

Regards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJWillicombeUK (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

Category:Essex Senior Cup, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liverpool Senior Cup, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up (and, I think, improving) what I wrote re non-English clubs in the PL. Just one question/suggestion for the moment:

Should the section be titled 'Foreign club participation in the Premier League' (to distinguish it from foreign players and managers)? I realise it's already within the Clubs section, but this may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader, or the casual editor. I'll leave the decision up to you, as I don't want to make any more changes myself for the time being, as I'm simply exhausted by previous arguments on the subject, and fairly sick of it at present. I do have a couple of other fairly minor matters that I might want to bring up eventually, but I'll leave them until if and when I feel willing to put up a fight to defend them. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The problem with talking about "foreign clubs" is that most of the talk revolves around Welsh and, to a lesser extent, Scottish participation. It's rather inaccurate I'd argue for clubs from one part of the UK to be regarded as "foreign" in another part of the same country. - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply (as above, copied by me from my Talk Page), Chris. That was why I called the section "Non-English", not "foreign". I simply assumed it was you who had changed it to "foreign" and I didn't want an argument about it. If you want to change it back to "Non-English" (with or without "club"), you would have my full support on that. (I'm posting this on both our Talk pages, to be sure you don't miss it - if you want to continue the conversation, please let me know which Talk page you prefer; I'm putting your Talk page on my watchlist, if I haven't done so already). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like "non-English", "Celtic" might do instead, though it has its own problems (such as Cornish clubs, and because in theory the section should be available for anybody wishing to report on any future actual or hypothetical proposals to add Continental clubs, such as already happens in Rugby Union (2 Italian clubs in the Celtic League) and Rugby League (where the Catalans play in an otherwise all UK top tier league), or for any editor simply wishing to briefly point out the absence of such proposals in the PL in contrast to those other leagues). But I'm not really bothered, as, by and large, no such wording deprives the reader of any important info, nor supplies it either.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now see you had already made the change to 'Non-English clubs'. Thanks, and please ignore the stuff about "Celtic" above as out-of-date Tlhslobus (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Intermediate dispute may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• The dispute was principally led by the [[Glasgow Junior Football (GJL). The GJL was the strongest Junior league in Scotland, having provided

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you'd made recent edit(s) to Levi Leipheimer. Not sure what is your degree of interest in the subject, but if any, would you please check the article talk page and provide feedback on rationalizing image selection and layout for the article? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Azx2 23:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Commonwealth has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of mark it for deletion after 2 seconds from creation, can you help me out on the article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miky765 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miky765 has been indefinitely blocked as a blatant sockpuppet. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chrism, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Serhii Bondarchuk, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: A former member of parliament is considered notable automatically. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Christian democracy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• progressive]] and to some degree influenced by [[liberation theology]].<ref name=Szulc>{{cite journal |first=Tad |last=Szulc |title=Communists, Socialists and Christian Democrats |journal=[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chrism (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

2620:0:862:1:a6ba:dbff:fe38:fae1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NoahS24fgtp". The reason given for NoahS24fgtp's block is: "Spambot".

• Blocking administrator: Elockid (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Cleared the autoblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was undone. Do NOT delete a piece of information because it was incorrectly attributed, especially when you are aware of the source. That is a dick move. Next time, simply add the attribute. Rtm135 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Local Government Act 1972, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SELNEC (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) 08:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd mention that I've replied to your comment in the talk page of the 2012–13 FA Cup article. Feudonym (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Lords may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s,<ref>{{cite web |first=Darren |last=Hughes |publisher=Electoral Reform Society |title=The Supersized House

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2014 (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 Jackman Park page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:18, 13 March 2015 (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 Act of Settlement 1701 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:19, 2 April 2015 (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 The New Saints F.C. page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter 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) 00:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chrism, it looks as if an "edit war" is developing over the size of an image in Parliament of the United Kingdom. Please don't continue reverting without discussion - even if your version appears clearly better. As we always say "please take it to the talk page". I've warned the other editor: Noyster (talk), 07:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! —M@sssly^✉ 10:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chrism, Thanks for reviewing the article on Mirza Ghulam Qadir Beg. Mr. Beg played a pivotal role in the Kashmir freedom struggle prior to the independence of India. This wikipedia article is the first attempt at documenting his contributions to social and political causes in the state of Jammu and Kashmir (India). This is my first article on Wikipedia and I welcome your feedback. Best--Samabeg (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)S[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andy Burnham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sefton. 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) 08:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the "quotes" - sorry. WCCasey (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently reverted a change made to the everton honours list, implying that linking some of the awards under the section "others" implies they are foreign. I disagree as it simply implies they are seperate from national domestic and european honours, which they are (all small local competitions). I don't think anyone would think that the LIVERPOOL senior cup was foreign at all. More importantly though, it is the distinction provided by the sourcing that brought these into the honours list at all. Our job here is to reflect the sources and that is what they show. If that is how the club distinguishes them, so must we. Davefelmer (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SuperCupNI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danny Murphy. 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) 09:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that not only are you on the verge of an edit war which may well get you blocked, and a quick review of English premier league clubs would reveal a clear consensus to use the singular in the opening paragraph (I stopped when I got to Middlesbrough and hadn't found a single instance of "are"). You ask another editor to adhere to BRD and seek consensus, but as far as I can see it is you who are editing against consensus. Please don't revert to "are" without seeking wider input. Fenix down (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List PR. Since you had some involvement with the List PR redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British politics/party colours/Alliance has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrism. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrism. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

The cited source for Everton honours clearly distinguishes what it regards as "honours" (as shown in the highlighted box) and stuff like the county cups which are not listed in the section for "honours". Furthermore, the links for the cups themselves show that teams such as Everton have fielded reserve sides for the competitions over the years. You are not seriously implying that Lakaku, Barkley and co. won the Liverpool and Lancashire Senior Cups last season are you? Yes, big clubs did play their strongest teams in the earliest stages of the competition but for a vast part of its history they haven't. The equivalent of such cups are listed in the reserve sections of teams like Man Utd and Liverpool so the consistency is to put them there, since that is the team that has won them most often. They are not considered senior honours. And on top of all that, I'm not sure which is the official Everton site but this source which is evertonfc.com shows an honours list that doesn't include the county cups: (http://www.evertonfc.com/content/history/honours-and-records). Davefelmer (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrism. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goathland railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Esk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrism. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Chrism, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Everedux (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect That try. Since you had some involvement with the That try redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New South Wales cricket team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark blue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appriciate that you've been here a long time, and have done a lot of work, but I am very tired and ask that you forgive the slight terseness of my request; edit summaries are a vital method by which editors can quickly grasp what has happened in watchlists and histories (among many other places), but you have made 14,967 edits on en.wiki with no summary. That's 78.8% (as of just now) of your mainspace edits with no indication of what was done. Every time you edit without leaving a description of the work, other editors like me have to navigate to the diffs and parse everything by eye just to establish what you did. That gets quite laborious and very frustrating. Please get into the habit of leaving descriptive edit summaries for your fellow editors. Thank you. If you'd like to respond, please do so here (I am watching; no need to ping). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Katrien Meire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nick Pope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, So sorry, but I restored the FORSE PP talk on Edith Thompson - I hope you don't mind. It is bona fide research, a U3A Mirthy lecture which struck me as thorough and well-informed. A sort of Radio 4 meets LBC talk but rather more sharply analytical than most. If you feel strongly, maybe move the URL into a footnote? Thanks. All best wishes, uclerew Uclerew (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (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) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrism,

Thank you for creating National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hello Chrism, great job. But what are you referencing in this article? The citations says Part I, II, s. 19, etc, what are the references? Are you referencing the act itself?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Vanderwaalforces}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Football hooliganism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English Disease.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chrism. Thank you for your work on National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start. Of course it can use some secondary sources. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Crime and Security Act 2010. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]