This user may have left Wikipedia. Renata has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Also sorry to read this. I don't want to deface your talk page now it's closed for business, so please feel free to delete this after reading. Just wanted to say I respect you greatly, and you have showed me how to edit wisely and sensibly since I joined wikipedia. Thanks. Tpacw (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to both of you. Those kind, healing words have made a huge difference, and my talk page is no longer closed for business :-). Perhaps I've let the whole thing get to me far too much, and, because I have a lifelong passion for waterways, my own NPOV is perhaps questionable. All I know is: while there are guys like you on wikipedia, I won't want to leave it. Renata (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renata, your photography is an inspiration. It really captures the beauty of the places you visit.

Hi Renata, thank you for putting your POV to me. While I understand your comments and appreciate that while RCAHMS may state it "undoubtedly is HORSBRUGH CASTLE" their records still have as principal name and many others relating to the castle use Horsburgh Castle. I am happy to reword your rewrite of the article so that it reads better about differences in name. If you want to raise it at the WP:WikiProject Scottish Castles, I am happy to discuss with other members. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's talk about it :-) Renata (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a discussion on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Scottish Castleshere. I am happy if hard copy (book, magazine) sources can be located which clarifes this issue to rectify. I moved the page as the sources used Horsburgh Castle as the principal name. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your de-orphanising. Do you if she wrote in Braille? Her years of life would make it implausible. If yes, she could or should be in the Braille-navbox. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maintainer's talk page]]. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for work on the Wildlife Trust. Just trying to ensure links are included and incorporated where relevant. Keep up the good work. Together we'll get there. Man vyi (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Renata. I just stumbled over your Talk page and was delighted to see you still here and still editing. I used to be here under a different name, several stormings-off and givings-up ago, and we used to interact a bit - indeed I see that I was among the first few contributors to your Talk page back in ... whenever. Not that we were like Best Mates or whatever but we did exchange greetings and ideas occasionally.

I'm not in a huge hurry to connect my current trying-to-be-semidetached persona with who I used to be here (all serious and full of good intent and with what now seem to be miraculous amounts of time for Wikipedia) many moons ago, so I am not outing myself right now - though it probably wouldn't be rocket science to figure it out. If your and my userpage email thingies both work I might drop you a line and explain. For now, though, I just wanted to say how absolutely thrilled I was to see an editor from then still active and contributing well now! Tschuess!! DBaK (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can think of two or three chaps from the Oooooooolden days, and I'm not going to cajole you into giving anything away! It's great to hear from another "Trying-to-be-cool-and-detached-until-someone-p....es-me-off" Wikipedian !! I moved from England to Scotland three years ago, and I retired from teaching and vicar-ing in June, and I take most things with a large shovelfull of salt. If I feel even slightly wiki-stressed, I take a nice long holiday from it. At the moment I'm educating myself on the Scottish Borders which is good fun! And, as a by-product, making lots of contribs along the way. See if you can find me on Facebook... Renata (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably less exciting than the prolific contributors of whom you are thinking! But I've messaged someone on FB - maybe they will message me back and say (a) yes it's me or (b) get lost you creep! :) (I suppose both would be possible if somewhat strange.) How lovely to be retired - you have my serious envy - and in a lovely part of the world too. The salt sounds excellent, though I'd watch the blood pressure ... Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I'm glad we both know who I am now ... :) See you around; with all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry that you are no longer around. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth has this article been deleted ??? The item which the article described is the largest woven tapestry in the world.

I am about to (re-)create the article as "Apocalypse Tapestry" as this is the name it is commonly known as, amongst English speakers. The French use the plural (tapestries of the...). I have checked out the French language article, and as a teacher of French I will be able to translate it. Renata (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make a good article about it, go for it! But the copy I deleted in 2006 was not that article. Here's the complete text: "It is a part of the priceless collection in the Château d'Angers." and had a stub tab attached. Seriously, that was the entirety of the article. Also, _2006_! Anyhow, I look forward to reading an article about it that does it justice. Best of luck! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Renata, I was about to re-create this article too, but when I saw your comment here I thought that you should deserve the authorship of the article after all, even if it's just a stub. Do it and I will follow your editing. Here: Threading time: a cultural history of threadwork. Regards, Krenakarore (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barton turf fen mill.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have thousands of Broads images on file, and I really can't be bothered checking whether it's mine or not. I've also put all my image files into the public domain. I have removed the "offending" image from the relevant page. It's worth noticing that I have had to remove vandalism from "My Page" which was put there by the person who claims the image as his/hers. Please delete the image. Renata (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renata, I've noticed that the date of the first edidt on your user page is incorrect. The date of the earliest edit in your contributions page is wrong due to the old bug described here. Therefore your first edit was on 7 September 2002, not 22 June of that year. I haven't corrected this myself because I don't like making major edits to user pages, but I thought that I'd let you know. Graham87 11:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my previous message? Graham87 05:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and edited your user page directly. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 09:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To WikiProject Ports members:

I've proposed that WP:PORTS be rebadged as a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport. I think this would increase the pool of ports editors and help us expand our article range and quality. But that's just my view - please feel free to offer yours. The discussion is here, comments or criticisms welcomed. Euryalus (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk#Overloaded photo, discussing one of your images. DMacks (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following message was posted to my user-talk page, but it's actually addressed to you. DMacks (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - West Country Rivers Trust lists under Cornish Rivers a River Otter, with a Wiki link to Devon's River Otter. I think there's is a Cornish River of a similar/same(?) name - should this be corrected? Tony in Devon (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you have the time, could you look at WT:UKW#Waterways in the United Kingdom? Thanks. Simply south...... 13:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added something about the breakup of English/Welsh and Scottish canals. Is there anything specific you wanted me to look at ? Renata (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Scotland 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Gnevin (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is taking place at Talk:List of castles in England#Consensus to split List of castle in England. You are invited to participate. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 21:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Renata. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of England 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 template from the top of the article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2013 (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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Forth and Clyde Canal Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The organisation exists as many small groups do, but it doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Forth and Clyde Canal Society 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/Forth and Clyde Canal Society until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

The article List of Roman sites has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Category:Roman sites serves the same purpose as this tiny "list". I also think Category:Roman sites in Spain should be reworked to substitute List of Roman sites in Spain.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Qbli2mHd (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Scotland (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Sandstein 13:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Riding of Yorkshire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Accessible Boating Association, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accessible Boating Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Airedale Boat Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dewar, Scottish Borders has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

According to the Ordnance Survey map, this place consists mainly of a few sheep pens. It is nowhere near big enough to be called a village, and it is certainly not notable.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Belgians, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of Belgians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:List of Belgians during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. gidonb (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgians (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

gidonb (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Italy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of the Netherlands (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]