User talk:Robert EA Harvey

Useful post.There is no reference to any of these facts in Hills 1989. Can you find a few to back up your arguments and then we can integrate all this into the rticle- it will be stronger with it. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is good to see someone looks at the articles I work on! I just wondered what the point of the gbmappingsmall template, which you have added to the point of interest table, is. It seems to take me to an unintelligible page of mapping options, where, if I can work out what to press, I can eventually see just one point in its geographic location, rather than all of the points on the same map. I'd be pleased to understand the logic of it. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page is a bit cluttered. Basically you can pick any one of the options on that page and get a map centred on those co-ordinates

to see all the points you want kml, which is lat/long based instead, and which you already have there.

I have been heavily criticised in another place and another username for just using OS map references without GBmapping. I understood it was a policy, and made finding pages with OS map references easier in some arcane WP way.. The main use seems to be to locate a point on a map, and in the case of that list it does allow a cross-check of the map ref.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for the explanation. I have just discovered that you can click on the little globe, and it shows a map over the page, but it doesn't seem to be working very well, as the map gets over-written with "Bad Gateway" messages. That seems to be a general problem, as it is not just the Stamford Canal article that has the problem. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The {{gbmappingsmall}} template is one of a group which allow an OS grid ref to link to a page (GeoHack) from which you can select a mapping utility. This GeoHack page is exactly the same as the one linked from {{coord}}, a template which takes latitude/longitude - the only real difference is the way that the coordinates are specified. Note that since both {{gbmappingsmall}} and {{coord}} produce code to link to the GeoHack page, both will give the blue globe icon. The GeoHack page gives a choice of several mapping utilities, rather than one, for at least three reasons: (i) {{coord}} could pinpoint a location anywhere in the world, but not all mapping utilities cover everywhere in the world; (ii) different mapping services provide different kinds of detail, which are of varying relevance to the article concerned; (iii) different people prefer different types of map (I liked MultiMap, I don't like Bing); (iv) to favour one above others could run foul of WP:LINKSPAM. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the note on the Stamford talk page. I have added some explanation to the article, and there is a picture on the EAWA reference. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas join, if you would like to. Rich Farmbrough, 12:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Done--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added a fact template to the article 1753, stating that the fact that Sweden adopted the Gregorian calendar on March 1 doesn't agree with the linked article. However, the article Gregorian calendar states: "Sweden finally adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1753, when Wednesday, 17 February was followed by Thursday, 1 March." So, how do you mean that it doesn't agree with the linked article? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 16:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I read the linked article I thought that the paragaph on using both applied to Sweden and Finland, but on re-reading I can't see why. I'll withdraw the tag--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I cannot find any record of {{Lincolnshire-railstation-stub}} being approved (or even proposed) at WP:WSS/P - where is the approval? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created it on to add to the project. I did not attempt any hoop-jumping.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A related thread has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#UK Railway station stubs to which I have responded. You may wish to comment too. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the above category, I wanted to let you know that I've started a full CFD discussion here. I wanted to notify you because I didn't copy the comments made at CFD speedy, so you may want to post a new comment in the new discussion. I explained my rationale in a bit more detail. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added the maths rating template to a few article talk pages. When you do, please fill in all three of the parameters "class", "priority", and "field" per the template docs. The math project already has a List of mathematics articles, and so we don't need to tag the talk pages just to know that the articles exist. The only reason to add the {{maths rating}} template is to assess the article's quality, priority, and field. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, you can leave off the maths rating template, and someone else will get to it eventually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that you tagged several articles that aren't really in the scope of the math project. As a rule of thumb, if a topic would not be taught in a mathematics department, it probably is not in our scope, even if the topic involves math in some way. Otherwise the project's scope would be so broad - engineering, physics, chemistry, music, economics, etc. - that it would be almost meaningless. Instead we focus on the topics that are learned by math students and studied by mathematicians, along with basic math facts that are learned in grade school. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you rated this article as a "C", with a note that it needed more refs to be a "B". It is now nearly twice the length, with everything referenced, so wondered if you would care to cast another eye over it, to see whether it has reached "B" class? Bob1960evens (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Looks very good to me. Odd empty fields in the infobox (principally elevation). But looks like a B to me. All the 'B' boxes on your rating system are good.

Pastscape is poor, and I would be inclined to hit their feedback link about the filled-in remarks, which are increasingly innacurate. But they have some interesting refs. Lincoln library has a copy of whites, and I think Stamford does. I do know de Salis is available online. I see no howlers in the article.

Next step GA - don't know if I'm ready to assess them... --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have notified Pastscape about the filled-in remarks. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've re-graded the Stamford Canal article too, and suggested it should be mid importance on your project because of the date. I'll leave it up to you if you want to bump it any higher. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got a reply from PastScape to say they have now updated the information on the Grantham Canal, but it may be a couple of weeks before it is published on-line. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are awfully accomodating. I've pointed out errors on the Stamford&Essendine railway & they've ordered the books from the BL to check up & made corrections. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert EA Harvey. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since when has Bolton been in Lincolnshire? (see here) --Redrose64 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've not heard of our plan to liberate Lancashire then?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now managed to obtain a copy of Wheeler (1896), and it mentions that Kate's Bridge is Catebrigge in Appendix I, but there is no translation of that. In view of your note, do you know in which language Cate is Bishop? And is there anywhere where it says this? Bob1960evens (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! I never knew there used to be two stations in Stamford, and I suppose my teacher didn't either. From the map it hardly seems like there's any space for a separate line heading east, with the surviving Midland one very near the river. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 09:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

The article Deeping Fen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Deeping Fen for comments about the article. Well done! Rcsprinter (yak) @ 11:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. I noticed that you have nominated Sleaford Navigation, Grantham Canal and Stamford Canal for GA assessment. I am afraid that I cannot review them myself, as I have been a major contributor to their content in the past, but if I was reviewing them, I think that Sleaford is close to GA standard, but would have some concerns over the other two. For GA, an article needs to be "broad in its coverage", and I think the lack of a "Route" section in both would probably fail on this count. In addition, the lead on the Stamford article is too short for GA, while the Grantham article has two or three paragraphs with no refs at all, and I think the lead is still a bit short. I have fixed several dead links on the Sleaford article, but am a bit pushed to help with a Route section on the other two at the moment. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm willing to do a GA review at Talk:Stamford Canal/GA1. Are you still interested? I see from the note above that you have 3 articles nominated - I could probably do all three at once if you desire. --Noleander (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them 'cos I thought they were ready I'm in no way the lead contributor - please have a go if you want, but I'm in no real position to improve them myself. The others are listed on the project page. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case I might pass on the review. It is best if the nominator be someone that has worked on the article, is familiar with the sources, and is willing to devote time to addressing the issues raised by the reviewer. --Noleander (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the review is still open, I have offered to address any issues. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert EA Harvey, I am just letting you know that I review an article that you nominated for GA, Grantham Canal. Good luck and here is the review page: Talk:Grantham Canal/GA1. Regards,--12george1 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I am only the Nominator, not the principle editor. I've passed your notes to User:Bob1960evens (talk)

--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grantham Canal has also been awarded GA status! Bob1960evens (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah!good effort! --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun reviewing your nomination of Sleaford Navigation. A few points need action, which you can find detailed at the link above. Thanks for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I am only the Nominator, not the principle editor. I've passed your notes to User:Bob1960evens (talk)
--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaford has just been awarded Good Article status. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! I thought it deserved it as-was. Well done!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. I’m interested in the criteria you use to assess a place article. Do you have your own, or is there a WP guideline of what is what ? I tend to think that if an article has about 5+ reliable refs, with two or three paras of info (not one sentence per para), and perhaps with sections (but not one sentence per section), this seems about right to elevate a stub. But I’m not entirely sure. I notice that you assess importance too. What do you consider constitutes start, mid or high levels of importance for the Lincolnshire Project ? Can you offer any advice ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk)

second things first. Importance. This is easy. Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Assessment sets it all out. I tend to assess places more than anything else. According to the plan there all villages, and small towns are at least a mid, I've taken that to include hamlets too, as otherwise how do you draw the line: these days with all the housebuilding even hamlets are of some size. It makes sense to me that places where several people live must be more important than individual people, that are usually a low.

For the other projects I follow their criteria too, e.g. on population size. I don't think I've rated above a low on other projects. Any individual people I've lifted out of unassessed I have always made low. According to the same page only notable people would be a Mid, and famous people a High. All those seem to have already been done anyway. I also assess railway stations, closed and open, and invariably make them low.

Now for Quality Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Assessment also gives quite good guidance, but the shading between stub&start or start&C will always be subjective. I tend to think

• Anything with one or two lines is a definite stub
• A short article with one or two separate topics is probably still a stub, even if refernced
• A very short article can still be a stub even if it has an infobox
• A short article with 4 separate topics, at least some referenced, is a start
• A article with 3 or 4 separate topics, some references, and perhaps a picture is likely A C If there is not much more to say. Some places are small with only one big historical hit, so that could be 100% of what the policy page calls substantial.

I read Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Assessment to suggest that an article rated C can still have huge room for improvement.

None of it matters much. It's a casual sorting mechanism, to encourage editors and identify where effort might best be placed. The project page says it is subjective. If anyone disagrees they can ask for a review, or even just change it! I tend to use the WP principles of 'good faith' and 'be bold'.

--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that - interesting reading. It seems that articles are a bit of a moving target when it comes to stub application. I've just found this and this, which seem to describe the subjectivity of the whole business, but I'll bear what you say in mind. Thanks. Acabashi (talk)

I noticed that around 600 'stub' Lincolnshire articles were - to all practical purposes - finished. I asked around and no-one wanted to do anything about it so I decided to do it myself. I have stuck to things where I can have a sense of proportion - places, railway stations, bit of history. I have avoided footballers and elections where my natural dislike would make me non-objective. I reckon I'm about done, too, so will go back to editing articles instead.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I've begun the review for your nomination of River Witham and would like your thoughts on a few points. Thanks as always for your contributions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twice in the past few days you've cropped up on my watchlist, first editing Lincoln Castle and now Bolingbroke Castle. Is your main interest castles or Lincolnshire? Sadly, I don't know much about the latter but I might be able to help if you're interested in castles. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an active member of the Lincolnshire project, mainly interested in places & history. I've been working through assessing the stub and start articles, many of which have not been assessed for years and are better than their grading suggests, and a fair few of which would benefit from extra projects to help. I've started to look at the castles - Bytham Castle, Carlton Castle, Kingerby Castle, Grimsthorpe Castle , Bourne Castle and the Priory and Monastery stubs. Many of the castle pages are well-written but lack thorough in-line citations (Oxford Castle is a model of good practice) so I've not been able to bump the quality grading. I don't really like drive-by tagging, so I've been adding fairly simple and generic supporting references when I can, but I don't have access to the specialist texts the original authors have access to. Nor, as in Carlton, do I want to start tearing into articles outside my specialist knowledge, e'en where there seem to be obvious errors.

I also note that there are no separate articles for Folkingham, Corby Glen, or Stamford, among others.

One thing that does concern me is the strategic summary at Lincoln_Castle#Norman_castle - the whole section is unreferenced and the description of the strategic location, while wise and realistic, could easily be accused of being Original Research and challenged as an essay. UK articles are often swooped on by unsympathetic delete-happy editors (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourne Westfield Primary School for an unhappy example, that damaged an attempt to provide full by-school coverage in the district, seriously unbalanced the Bourne, Lincolnshire article, and raised a nasty notability precedent). A lot of intelligent work has gone into the Lincolnshire project. But large chunks of it are vulnerable.

--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha I see. It's nice to see some activity on Lincolnshire's articles. In which case I'll try to look at the articles on Lincolnshire's castles and see if I can help with a few references. I might not being doing much editing this month or next as I've just found more demands on my free time, but I hope I might be able to lend a hand. Oxford is an excellent example of how to put a castle article together. That's because User:Hchc2009 wrote it (he's also written pieces such as motte-and-bailey castle and Windsor Castle). If I don't get my act together, it might be worth asking if he can help.

Hopefully Lincoln Castle will stay as it is (the article at least). I'm content to leave the bit on strategy there as it's doing no harm, but if someone takes issue with it because of original research I'll start scouring sources.

As far as the ones without articles are concerned, very little is known about Corby Glen which despite being a scheduled monument has next to nothing written on it. The motte has an interesting dent in the top though. Stamford Castle has an interesting history, but only a couple of pieces of wall survive above ground which is probably why it's not not attracted much interest. Ripe for an article though. Similarly, Folkingham has a history going back to the 11th century but nothing survives above ground level. Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the last hustings taking place at Stamford castle, in the 1960s. All 3 candidates stood above the crowd, in that curious elevated doorway, while we shouted and threw chip wrappers.

If we do nominate Lincoln Castle as a GA it will need a hewll of a lot of work!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring River Witham to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed the main contributors. Would you feel able to help out on the work mentioned in the review? Every little helps! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good show!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you have a good track record of responsible editing, and have added a couple of user rights to your account. Keep up the good work!

Hi Robert EA Harvey, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Fayenatic London 08:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Fayenatic London 08:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pics on this one - I was all set to drive through Stainfield to take my own on the way up in a week or so - this saves me the trouble. Acabashi (talk)

Don't let me stop you! Geograph has lots of empty centisquares, if not 1K squares.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to wikimedia but no such category there. I have created it and populated it.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article to which you contributed has been promoted for a DYK on WP main page - details on Lincs Project Talk. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. Thanks for the news. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of St John the Evangelist’s Church, Corby Glen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen (pictured) has extensive early 15th-century wall paintings? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. Please accept my apologies, I was a little hasty. Having translated several of these "Road" is sometimes used and there were one or two websites using it in this case. However, further research has revealed that this is part of an EU project and they and their German colleagues as well as a number of national German tourist sites are using "Route of Megalithic Culture" as the official name, so I have revised the title and added appropriate references. Are you planning to translate the German article? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I notice in Category:German tourist routes that only Road of Weser Renaissance has Road at the start, but that seems to be a literal translation and probably correct. I suspect that German Avenue Road would look far less clumsy as a Route as well.

As to translation, a lot depends. There is a lot of good stuff there, and the table would translate easily enough, but it depends where I go to work. Next time I am in the area I quite fancy making my own photo-survey and using my own pictures in the English Wikipedia. I contribute my photos to http://geo-en.hlipp.de/ and they can be transferred under CC2 to the commons easily enough. I would be cautious about translating some of the paragraphs, as there are subtleties of grammar that might be problematic, and the references may not quite hold up.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. I've run through the refs for this one, but I can't seem to fix ref 24 to the mobile library, which doesn't connect for me. I wonder if you would like to take a look at this. Thank for the expansion here. Acabashi (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate problem was the presence of a space - they're simply not allowed in URLs. However, depending on the server software at the other end, there are two possible fixes. I've altered it to use %20 but I can't test it because the whole site http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/ seems to be down. When it's back up, the ref link will need re-testing, and may need tweaking to use a + instead of the %20 --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The %20 is a working fix. That is what the original has. The version of Firefox I have now displays this as a space after the site has responded, so we may see a rash of this sort of thing.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per |fewer-links=x in Nat. Her. temps - when I asked for this facility this is what was provided, but the temp creator said it doesn't really matter what you put after the =, it will still work - so take your pick :) ... Template:NHLE and Template Talk. Acabashi (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My experience was that with =x the extra blue links vanished in preview mode but were still visible after saving the page.

With =yes they were not visible after saving.

I think it was amusing to see you removing blue links in references like this, and someone else adding them for Geograph. Ha ha. I don't much care either way.

--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the bell situation on this one - reasons here. Acabashi (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your reply on the church Talk page. Acabashi (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no comments to object to a removal of this article and no added information to show it is a distinct notable settlement for over a year I have added a prompt for deletion. Best. Acabashi (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2014 (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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert EA Harvey. 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]

Hello, Robert EA Harvey. 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]

Hello, Robert EA Harvey. 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]

Hi. You seem to have been left off an original ping list for this one. Your involvement in place articles could suggest you might interested in this topic. Thanks. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England/Parishes_RfC Acabashi (talk) 14:30, 19 November 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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oswald at Bardney has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gunby and Stainby 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/Gunby and Stainby 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.

Lindsey40186 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert EA Harvey, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Austerby, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austerby.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheLongTone (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]