User talk:Blue Square Thing/Archive 3

Sock
Hi, as you have looked before at a couple of these may be could look at who may be another sock of ? Keith D (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good spot - almost certainly. I've initiated an SPI and tagged a bunch of the images for CSD. Some he's probably right on - the Welsh ones look OK for example. But he keeps on failing dismally with the Treasury and DfE. There's likely to still be some clean up that needs to be done, so if you get a chance to follow up the contribs... :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again, what do you think about - another sock? Keith D (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Southwold Lighthouse
A great evening's work, congratulations. It looks and reads much better now. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated - made a few more tweaks this morning. Not looking so bad at all! Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Southwold lighthouse
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Should it be Southwold Lighthouse, as per most of these? Unfortunately I can't move it as there's a redirect... Ericoides (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent question that I've been trying to work out the answer to! The only bonus from my pov is that I expanded it rather than started it so it's not my fault :-) Certainly Trinity House calls it Southwold Lighthouse, so I guess that means that the lighthouse bit is part of the real name - i.e. a proper noun rather than simply a descriptor. WP:TITLEFORMAT would certainly suggest capitalisation therefore. So, hmmm - we can ask for a procedural deletion of the redirect page which should be satisfactory I think - WP:MOR won't work afaik as there's more than one line of history. I half expected this to crop up in the DYK process!


 * Btw, thanks for your helpful copy edits in that DYK process. Very helpful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It really should be upper-case, imo. I'd try deletion of the redirect page, but I'll leave that to someone else. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a go later this week and see if I can sort it - once I have the worst of the work and assessments done... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Billy Bragg
Just a thought re your "advocating violence" edit note, but perhaps someone is interpreting the "duffing them up in the street, which I'm also in favour of" remark from the political section less flippantly than perhaps was intended. Britmax (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's where it is - searched through the ref earlier and didn't spot that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm unsure it belongs in there, and certainly the way it was inserted was pushing a POV I think, but at least now I understand where the hell it came from! Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Marquis de la Eirron
Hi, I know you have been involved in a few socks of Marquis de la Eirron and was wondering if they may have branched out with a new tactic. Have seen a number of images added to MP articles by single edit user, the user also uploading the image on to commons as a single edit claiming the image is their copyright. The username appears to be related to the MP in question. One of these, Priti MP, has just done a second edit adding an image to Eleanor Laing. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks very similar doesn't it - to the extent that I've reverted the addition. If that's "own work" then I'd be absolutely amazed. I don't really do Commons stuff so I'm not sure how to go about challenging it there - that's the nasty thing about M de la E: there seems to be no desire to maintain any form of integrity for the project. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Grant Shapps/Archive 1
In view of your previous involvement in this topic you may wish to be aware of this RFC. TerriersFan (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks; done Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion - European Elections 2009
This subject is in dispute at the moment and we're looking for 3rd parties to come and cast their view, please see the bottom of the talk page. As you can see we almost have consensus, we just want a few more outsiders to be sure. The argument is to remove The BNP and the Green Party of England and Wales from the info box. The arguments are clearly made. If you don't want to read it all just read the last 2 sections at the bottom, that's all you'll need to make your decision. Please also click on the inks to check that the argument is correct in it's facts (which it is). Hope you can spare 2mins to do this, many thanks :-) Nick  Nick Dancer' 20:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Woops, sorry about that

Stop removing images
Why are you removing these images, whether or not they were uploaded by a sock is irrelevant as they are clearly legit or they would have been deleted by now. There is no need to remove them so stop it as they make the articles better by showing what the person looks like! M Macleod 20.10 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * SPI already initiated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Maria Miller
Ah yes, it does indeed mention the inquiry. That'll teach me to look a bit closer, I guess. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * With the same refs iirc :-) No worries - need a second parag on that yet do you think? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As the story develops I think it will. Might also be worth splitting the Oliver stuff into a second paragraph,. I'll give it a try, but feel free to revert it if you think it doesn't look right. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good to me there. Balance seems to be about right to me without throwing too much recentist stuff in, Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Diana Johnson image
Hi BST, I don't feel competent to follow the windings of copyright law, so thought I'd contact her office for a suitable photo to go up in the New Year. This should sort the problem? RLamb (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds perfect to me. Half the problem is that the copyright situation on legacy stuff isn't as clear as it could be. Good job - thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've received a portrait from her office and have (with difficulty) uploaded it to Wikimedia commons. I then added it to her wikipedia page...probably in a rather inept way.  I expect you have considerably more experience of this, so if you can tidy it up please feel free to do so.RLamb (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Balls image
I've also replied on my talk page, but I'll leave a note here two.

The request for the image is, with appropriate licenses. -- Hazhk Talk to me 22:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Southwold entry - removal of hotels and pubs paragraph
I'm not happy about the removal of this paragraph on the grounds that it is either quickly out of date or advertising.

There is no "advertising" in it whatsoever, as it is a factual listing of notable pubs past and present. No ownership or proprietorship is mentioned.

As far as "out of date" is concerned, I fail to see what in it could possibly become out of date. I suppose the current pubs listed might change their names, but I doubt it, as they are more likely to close entirely. The same applies to the hotels, and, in any case, this contains interesting historical information; which I suppose could be considered "out of date", in which case all historical reference could be considered unnecessary.

The paragraph is also intended to give the reader some idea of the historic and extensive seaside resort, with many prime hotels, that Southwold once was.

Roaringboy (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So write it in the history section as a bit about the history of the town - and I'm certain that there is some merit in mentioning names of specific historic buildings in there. But don't write it as a gazetteer entry which is what it was. Tbh the focus of the article has a number of problems with it anyway - it really should try to keep to the guidelines on writing about places. I keep on meaning to try to get a chance to work it over but time always defeats me as it needs so much work. The guidelines are at WP:UKCITIES btw. I worked on getting the Lowestoft article into this sort of shape a while back (it'll now need updating of course) as an indication of the sort of thing that we might look to aim to work towards. It might also be worth looking at Herne Bay, Kent or Birchington-on-Sea, both of which are seaside towns and have FA status (although in 2007 - I imagine they were a touch sharper as an article back then). That really is the way to aim towards. It is, I'm afraid, a whole pile of work! Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. I'll review the references you give and see what I can make of the article in light of what they suggest or illustrate. I notice, by the way, that the section dealing with Southwold Pier has been considerably altered (not especially to my liking), and now links to a separate entry for the Pier which is somewhat anodyne and lacking in much of the detail previously offered within the Southwold entry.

Happy 2013 editing, by the way. Roaringboy (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. With regard to the pier, that's probably the point really - the problem with articles is that there can end up being way too much information about specific subjects where these are also covered in independent articles. Linking to those articles and then summarising the very key points in the main article is probably MOS compliant and cuts down the detail. If you look at the Lighthouse article it does the same thing - there's way too much info on the Lighthouse to include. We need, as I think we both noted some time ago, to do the same with the church section which is incredibly detailed. I want, fwiw, to do the same thing in the Lowestoft article with the lighthouse section there - split it off as it's own article.


 * Maybe we'll get around to sorting this article out this year! It's been on my wishlist for long enough certainly!! Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Fernando Llorente - updates
Hi there BSQ, AL "here",

since we both are so keen in keeping this article neat and up-to-date, i notify you of my changes: 1 - no need to say he will join Juventus in intro, he plays for Bilbao until 30 JUNE 2013. In 1 JULY the intro will read "he plays for Juventus in Serie A" simple as that. The negotiations with the Italians and akin belong in CLUB CAREER; 2 - i have improved the display of the last three refs added to CLUB CAREER, i feel that only when the refs are added with all the fields (PUBLISHER, WEB, TITLE, etc), should it have the accessdate. I think you will be pleased with my arrangements therein, not so sure about the intro edit i made, but i don't think "he refused to sign a new contract with Athletic then moved to Juventus" belongs to intro.

About the everpersistent vandals: don't waste your breath in your summaries man, they WILL continue, since i doubt 5 or 6-year-olds can handle the WP technicalities well enough to edit, this is done by people that just don't listen/care, we'll just have to revert/block/ignore.

Keep up the great work, from Portugal - --AL (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey AL. I'm happy with the refs sure - although I dislike cite web templates mainly because I can't ever remember any of the syntax, but if other people want to convert them then most of the time I don't have issues with that (although there are issues with page load time when there are lots of refs as well apparently) - but I would always name a ref - that was it can be reused whenever necessary within the page. Again, I always add access date because that's what my university wants me to add whenever I access a web page - it's actually *more* important than almost anything else as web pages are dynamic rather than static (in theory anyway) so what they said on such and such a date is crucially important. But, y'know...


 * On the lead - I would say we want something in the lead about Juve. Not a lot - and perhaps not as much as there was - but I think there needs to be something. Even if it's along the lines of "In July 2013 he will move to Juventus when his contract with Bilbao expires"? That will help reduce some of the Juve related changes perhaps - they'll see that there and perhaps be more likely to stop? Well, maybe - it's also inherently notable I think. Thoughts? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As i said in the 2nd paragraph man, the vandals/lowlifes WON'T STOP regardless of what's said in this or any other intro. About the lead, yes, Juventus is a very big club so something needs to be added about his spell there. However, keep in mind, the intro is a SUMMARY of the subject's career, so it should be written in the past in my humble opinion; thus, something to the effect of "In 2013 Llorente moved to Juventus where he played X/Y seasons" should suffice.

Cheerio --AL (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've left a further note in the article's talk, re-re-reply if you wish. About the vandals/lowlifes, see what they care, player moves in JULY, they keep adding Juventus to "current club", really pissing me/you/us off (and counting)... --AL (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage
Hi Blue Square Thing,

I wonder if you've heard of Wikivoyage. I added the 1588 map mainly after contributing to the Aldeburgh article and thought it needed a map.

Since you're familiar with Suffolk, if you've any tips to add to http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Aldeburgh or similar articles, that would be excellent!

Thanks, cm&#610;&#671;ee&#2927;&#8202;&#865;&#176;&#160;&#814;&#1583;&#8202;&#865;&#176;&#8201;&#2669; 19:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've avoided it so far - too biased probably to add too much to it (the other fish and chip shop is better imo - a heretical thing to say probably!). I might tweak a few odds and sods though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: Maria Miller Image
I know how the banning policiy works, but neither, or  is banned from editing here or at Commons. I don't know who is the banned editor you are referring to. Now, if the problem is that it was uploaded by something banned after s/he was banned, we can delete the image, and re-upload it with a non-banned editor. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  04:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The file was first uploaded by User:Musical Mind20 on 2012-01-25. This is one of many, many socks of User:Marquis de la Eirron, as the various SPI will demonstrate - the one for MusicalMind20 focused on the uploading of images as it happens (see here). For some reason when MM20 was blocked (on 2012-02-09 iirc) it's edits weren't followed up and the images deleted from here. The images were then transferred to the Commons at some point in the future.


 * The specific image we have here is probably a free use image as the dwp has been using a clear open gov license for longer than other departments. Many of the other images that seem to be in place aren't necessarily free use - or certainly not when they were uploaded. The intricacies of how various government departments interpreted copyright on images over the last two years is complex.


 * But, beyond that, essentially we allowed stuff a user uploaded and was then banned - for uploading - to remain until it got transferred, by another user, to the Commons where, because it was moved by another user there we can't do anything about. Seriously fantastic way to avoid a community wide community-wide ban (see here) don't you think? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Semicolon
It should be a semicolon because there are already commas there. You use a semicolon so it's clear what separates individual items and what separates an item from its description. Imagine we were talking about actors and the parts they play:

"The cast was John Smith, Abraham Lincoln; James Davis, John Wilkes Booth; and Todd Wilson, Ulysses S. Grant"

What would happen if you used commas in place of semicolons? - Richfife (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a different case though isn't it? Those are three things that need to be specifically distinguished from each other - you could just as easily write "JS as Abe, JD as Booth...". In the Sanders case aren't we using the commas to mark an aside, well, aside? The flow of the sentence continues as opposed to having to stop - the commas simple mark where the aside is don't they? So it's "Sanders is named either after C. W. Sanders, (ASIDE) a railroad office engineer, (end ASIDE) or Art Saunders, who had a trading post nearby."


 * Mind you, my punctuation can be dreadful at times. It just seems to make more sense and flow better if they're both commas. I should really look this sort of thing up but, y'know, it's late and all. No worries either way to be honest - I only stopped in there to sort the schools out following up a dab notice from someplace else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Whipping v non-whipping issues of conscience

 * Q. Why don't we have lists of every MP's votes?
 * A. Because MPs are told how to vote by their bosses. They generally oblige, otherwise there are penalties.

On some "issues of conscience" however, they are given free votes. This is why theyworkforyou.com prominently list issues of conscience rather than always voting in favour of the government (CON/LD) or always against (LAB, everyone else).

This is why issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc need to be documented. It is you who need to understand this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that already ta. Articles on MPs are bad enough anyway at trying to maintain some even vague understanding of weight - far, far too many hobbyhorses and really minor political positions detailed and not enough general brush drawing. The last thing we need is more weight placed on specific issues, even if they are non-whipped - how many others do you want scores (which will be rapidly out of date and then not updated of course) and very specific votes added to? If there was a wholesale improvement in the quality of an article then I would mind a lot less. Otherwise it's easily in the undue weight category (not to mention pushing a POV). Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bus Routes
Just thought you would like to know that there has been a lot more lists which have been nominated for deletion which can be viewed here. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Diss.
Hello BST. You seem intent on not allowing my 'External Link' from the Diss page to the 'Old Dyssean Society'. The Societies pages have much about Diss, the Secondary School, The Grammar School, its pupils, teachers and history. I am building a page for the school but I am intrigued that the Diss page has info about religion, media and sport (some not up to date) etc and you don't want me to add a link about education and Diss's great seat of learning. Please help me by giving a more explict reason. Thanks, no intent to annoy intended, merely seeking clarification and understanding. Seth REEDER. (Desparately seeking the tilde on a French keyboard). Sefdik  /0^0\ (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In general I don't think the Diss article is great quality in the first place. The material you're talking about at least conforms to the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES about how to write about places. It's not high on my priority list to deal with the article in general, but it could certainly use a section on Education - which should mention current schools and could mention something about the history education in the town. There are, as you can see from the guidelines, a whole pile more stuff that needs to be dealt with in the article itself.


 * The external link itself isn't a great one for Wikipedia in many ways - it's self published etc... which is generally a bit of an issue. It potentially has a place on the school page, but I would argue very strongly indeed that it's far too specific **as an external link** on the locality page. In general we try to keep external links to a minimum in most cases. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Xyphoid
I noticed your revert of an image change by User:Xyphoid. I have just re-opened this with an entry I reverted as it looks like another sock. Keith D (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Peterborough listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of bus routes in Peterborough. Since you had some involvement with the List of bus routes in Peterborough redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Peter&#160;James (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

River Alde
Hi Blue Square Thing,

I've merged River Ore into River Alde as you proposed. Could you please check that everything is in order? Feel free to make any changes :-)

Thanks,

cm&#610;&#671;ee&#2927;&#8202;&#865;&#176;&#160;&#814;&#1583;&#8202;&#865;&#176;&#8201;&#2669; 21:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Just for all the help you gave me ages ago :)

GingerGeek (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 

Career stats tables, wrt Henri Lansbury
Hello. As there's a danger of some of us getting involved in an edit war, which I'm sure we don't want, please consider contributing at the discussion I've just started at Talk:Henri Lansbury. Thank you, Struway2 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ta - appreciated and done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Transport in East Anglia
Just thought I better tell you that First is not the main operator in Suffolk. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 08:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On a county wide basis, rather than simply in Ipswich, it's the most influential provider though. And, at the level the article's working at, I think we really need to keep things fairly simple. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see your point and I agree. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Joshuaforest
Thanks, blocked and tagged. GiantSnowman 11:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Bingham
FWIW, you misunderstood me - when I said I "tidied it up", I meant I tidied up after |the edit made by 80.235.237.177, not your subsequent edits (which were fine, and of which I only tweaked one sentence). Not sure that Paperballpark is the only editor involved, unfortunately; anon IP 80.235.237.177 also seems to have added (generally positive) material rather indiscriminately. Anyway, thanks for your good work on the article. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought it was my typos and awful ce!! Never mind - if it was, thanks; if it wasn't then thanks again :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Airport destination listings
Hi! Please take some time in familiarizing yourself with WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. The destination listing is deemed encyclopedic only as far as illustrating the airport's significance, so charters are only allowed if they are significant and regular. BH's twice-in-a-summer services cannot be listed, and so are "announced" services that are so uncertain that they cannot commit to a date. HkCaGu (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks: I assumed there must be something like this but couldn't find it. I assume you're referring to point 9 on the list you linked to? In which case, can I ask some advice re:Cambridge Airport. Would that mean that we should remove the Small Planet flights as well, which seem to now consist of only 1 flight in and out per year now? Or is there a case, for a small airport such as Cambridge, for retaining these very limited flights in the table? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes it is point 9. If something is once or twice a year (instead of once a week for a few weeks), it is definitely off the table. And something not qualified the table can definitely be mentioned in the text, provided it is "not deceptive" as to frequencies. If the IP who added a start date was honest enough to also add an end date, I wouldn't have to elevate the warnings. HkCaGu (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Fernando Llorente - Updates
Hi there BST, AL "here",

i congratulate immensely for your efforts on this guy's article, you and me must be the most active users in this page for months now! A small favour i ask of thee please: could you please stop OVERLINKING Aritz Aduriz? He's already referred to above in CLUB CAREER (fourth paragraph). I have also improved the display of the two new refs you added in his JUVENTUS sub-section.

Attentively, keep up the great work --AL (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, didn't realise he was - no worries. My gut feeling was to delete the ref which was speculative about his number btw - and keep the more definite Football Espana one from after the press release. Personally I hate cite ref with a passion, but if you want to convert stuff to it I'm not going to complain particularly - not until it starts slowing page load times down too much anyway. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No man, i also prefer the manual refs (why would we need all those fields ain't it?), but it's a WP standard proceeding. Arghhh... --AL (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Last time I read cite help pages it seemed OK to use a variety of methods? But that might have been some time ago! Reliable sources do suggest that too many cite ref style stuffs on a page does slow down load time though. Iirc there was a discussion about it at Talk:Glossary of association football terms. Convinced me to only ever use manual refs fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the edit.. it helped me acknowledge how Wikipedia likes their articles. --Attractel (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and don't worry too much, your original stuff wasn't too shabby! Good work with the references in particular, although you can see that I added the EDP which is always a good source for East Anglian stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Sheringham High School a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, heck - I've been out the game for 6 months and totally forgot about moves would you believe! Thanks for sorting this out. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem at all - the page should now be merged back together if i am correct. If something is still out of place just give me a nudge, and I'll see if i can correct it. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ta - much appreciated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor's barnstar for you!

 * Thank you - I really appreciate that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Lost settlement
Hello Blue Square Thing. I've noticed your work on List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom. I'm checking up on a whole range of articles about British villages and hamlets for nl-wiki. There is one I can't quite place, perhaps you know someting. It's about nl:Colston in Bingham in Suffolk. It's been a manor, an estate, but I'm not sure whether it was a hamlet. Links: Domesday, Current: a B&B. Thanks for reading this. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it was deleted. A bit on the speculative side, I guess. Sander1453 (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Danmark Rundt
Any time. Happens to me all the time - I know how it goes. :-)

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)