User talk:FGLawson


 * }

Dead links
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! The deadlink template is generally the preferred way to deal with references which are no longer available. There's information on it on the page about the template, and also at Link rot. Obviously, fixing the link if the page has just moved, or finding an alternative reference are better, but marking as deadlink is better than completely removing the reference - some references reappear after a time, some might be accessible through archive services if it's clear what we're looking for, and it makes it very clear that a live reference is needed. If you've got any other queries, don't hesitate to ask! Warofdreams talk 14:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

English Heritage external links
I think some of the links that you are adding to articles are of low value and definitely fall foul of the first of the criteria listed at WP:ELNO. Until their Portico facility rolls out in April (here's an example), my advice would be to steer away from any link that is just basic visitor information e.g. the one you added to Ludgershall, Wiltshire. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 15:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Revising a page
Hi, thanks for asking for my help. The simplest advice if you want to make changes to a page is to Be Bold! - just go ahead and make the changes. It is a good idea to have a look at the article's talk page to see if there has been any previous discussion relevant to the changes you want to make - and if you are concerned that your changes might be a bit too bold, then you can propose them on the talk page and get advice and feedback from other editors watching the article. Don't worry too much about "getting it spot on first time" - the great strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, and it's easy to fix mistakes. Go to it, and good luck - and never forget that there are plaenty of people willing to help. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the slow reply. I concur with Duncan - don't worry about being bold.  You're clearly happy to discuss changes, so you'll be well placed to constructively talk with anyone who disagrees with changes you've made or corrects any mistakes. Warofdreams talk 10:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

English Heritage
Hi looks like you've been hard at work here, but really don't think the draft amendments are appropriate for or best suited to the discussion page of the article. Why not be bold and add them into the article and improve upon them there, or alternatively work on them in your sandbox until they are ready. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved your work in progress here, but go on and be bold and add them to the article!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rob! I didn't know how to do that! Useful. I'll probably make the changes to the main page next week....FGLawson (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad you didn't mind.  I just felt that there that was too much there on the talk page, and I guess talk pages shouldn't be used to discuss every change, just ones which could be controversial or contended.  I only looked briefly at your proposed changes, but they look pretty well sourced, so I'd have thought providing no obvious problems like copyright violations or COI, etc., you should go for it!  One thing that does stick out though is the formatting of the references.  There should be no spaces before them, and they should come after any punctuation.  Happy editing!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Be careful of conflict of interest
Understand that this is not an accusation, as one of the key principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, but controversial or critical information about organisations on Wikipedia is sometimes removed by employees of the organisation. This is covered by Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy WP:COI. If you are an employee of English Heritage then I would ask you to declare this on your user page and then consider very carefully what you do with the article. Remember that checking for conflict of interest can be incredibly easy sometimes by using IP address checks (if you edit from a PC at work), or google/facebook/linkedin cross-checks if you register with your real name on Wikipedia. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 10:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Tweaks
Nice job. I just tweaked your content addition to English Heritage. I added either side of your cite web entries. I formatted your first use of "million" according to WP:MOSNUM. I made sure in two cases that there was no space between punctuation and the reference WP:REFPUNC. It would be nice to see the reference that is just a bare URL converted to use the same cite web format as the others. Let me know if you have any questions/issues. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Historic battlefields (new page)
Thinking about a page relating to heritage protection on 'historic battlefields', including the legislation, criteria for protection, what is protected, and perhaps also consequences of non-compliance, links to the wikipages of battlefield sites and Battlefield archaeology. Perhaps also sections on battlefields as memorials, and treatment of human remains, and the social-politics of historic battlefields...

Userfied sandbox/scheduled monument
I've moved this page to your userspace, at User:FGLawson/sandbox/scheduled monument, anticipating that you mistakenly created it as an article. Best, Meph talk 11:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - (how did I manaaage to do that! I thought that I'd done it in my sandbox) as you can probably see it is a draft that I'm going to work on!FGLawson (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I think you missed a slash, e.g. 'sandbox/scheduled...' instead of '/sandbox/scheduled...', when creating it. Meph talk 11:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Over linking
Your additions are excellent, but you do tend to over link. You should only use any particular link once within a section - so English Heritage, for example, need only be linked on its first occurrence but not for subsequent ones. The only exception to this is tables, where the links should be repeated in every row that they occur on. You also shouldn't link common geographic features (i.e. countries or major cities such as London, Paris, New York, etc.) or dates, years & centuries unless there is a very good reason to do it. Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok - I've been adding the symbols because I thought that is what you were supposed to do! I'll get rid of them.FGLawson (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Designation (heritage assets)
Hello there. On this article linked above, could use some categories as there currently are none. Thanks for your efforts! Tinton5 (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)