User talk:Hogweard

TUSC token 359ea5e401b81816f1a55a1d907f278f
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * History of Protestantism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Newman


 * Protestant Reformation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Newman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
it would be helpful to post the original locations under the helpme message please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem you landed yourself in has been fixed. I commend Adminhelpme to you. That was the expertise I used to solve your problem. As you will see, I was not the one to solve it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, Hogweard. I again apologize for getting your attention the way I did. It is interesting how it resembles, but is so different from, the English we speak today. I guess King Arthur of legend might have been familiar with it, or not, depending on location. Certainly, all the stories and movies about 20th century peoples landing in Arthur's time and effortlessly communicating with him are realistically impossible even if time travel was invented, so I guess any time traveler better take a universal translator along! GBC (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ibadibam (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Now Commons
Thank you for transferring files from En.WP to Commons, your work is greatly appreciated. In the future, part of the transfer process when naming the file different than the local version is to update all article that point to that photo. I've already done this for the file that you moved today (File:West Bay, Bridport, Dorset.jpg). Thanks,  TLSuda (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

New userboxes.
Dear Hogweard,

Thank you for contributing your two new userboxes today. I thought you might want to know that, in French, the feminine form of 'user' is: utilisatrice.

With kind regards; Patrick.ツ Pdebee.(talk) 23:39, 3 February 2015 (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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Brexit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Brexit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Brexit talk page
Hello,

I tried to give you my answer to the Brexit bias talk page, but because it was removed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brexit&diff=840544811&oldid=840542777 ) you will not be able to read it, so I give you a summary here.

Wording is important. Some words are so strong they make it difficult for people with other view to consider the argument. For instance the usage of the word Empire in the topic of Brexit is questionable (In what EU would be more an empire than UK?). Additionally, for controversial topics, an indirect style might help to provide more distance. For instance: According to Theresa May, ″the British people voted for change. (...) They voted to leave the European Union and embrace the world. (...) believing that it leads towards a brighter future for their children″, might sound better than «Britain would be happier and more prosperous as an independent sovereign democracy than as a partially devolved region within a supranational empire.»

Brexit article issues might come from variable Brexit meaning(s): Brexit was just a vague popular notion before the 2016 referendum make it a central topic. Then, with the MP decision it became a sort of project which was started/engaged by article 50 which planend a Brexit date for 2019 march. In the meantime many Europeans did not understood what is the Brexit concept (according to TM) and in the same time the British government provided clarity (or tried to) by defining the Brexit concept: «Brexit is Brexit». This changing nature of Brexit might make it hard to find the exact scope which would define «everything that needs to be said about this (Brexit) article», with appropriate verifiable sources.

Due to Edit wars you are involved in, I do not ask you to defend a point of view on those talk pages.

Some readings might help you if you consider future edits in wikipedia:

There are pages which try to document arguments to avoid (because they are not efficient to convince people with different views): Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages and its subchapters: #It's_valuable;#Personal_knowledge; #Wikipedia_should_be_about_everything;#Crystal_ball and/or also Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

This is useful because it saves time by not writing such argument.

Once it is understand which arguments are ineffective, remains the question of the right argument to use, and it is harder, but once again, some pages helps to find arguments to make: Arguments to make in deletion discussions and its main subchapters #References;  #Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines; #Per_essay.

Provided «examples above share a characteristic. Each is clear, concise, and focused which will gain more positive notice (...) than a long impassioned essay lacking specifics. Such lengthy comments will not outweigh other editors and can harm your credibility (...).»

I will try to be shorter next time... by reading again, rewording, removing useless words and reading again the argument before sending it, to be clear, concise, and focused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:EU2019switch
Template:EU2019switch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirects
Per WP:NOPIPE, redirects do not need to be changed. Please stop. - BilCat (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Map of Ulster: colours
You may not be aware of this but your choice of colours for the map of Ulster in Ireland is at best unfortunate. The colours you have chosen are very loaded. Orange is strongly associated with the Orange Order and Ulster unionism, green with Irish republicanism. So what in effect you have done is to show two thirds of Ulster as a Unionist fiefdom and one third a Republican fiefdom. Neither are true: opinion polls show that the identities of people in Northern Ireland are about 25% Unionist, 22% Nationalist and 50% none of the above. It would be tactful, if you could, to revisit, please. Safe colours would be purple or blue for NI and bright yellow (with the rest of Ireland continuing to be shown as pale yellow). Thank you. --Red King (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They're brown and green on my browser - see my (deleted) comment on Red King's talk page for why (in my view) the colours aren't a problem. 79.67.81.188 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Odd, I certainly don't see pink but the anon ip's brown is not as obviously wrong. Perhaps the solution is simply to change the caption at Ulster. Messy but pragmatic. Let's see, I suspect that it will be reverted rapidly. --Red King (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The colours are meant to be pink and green. I take the point about browsers showing the pink as brown - it is a dark one. I will lighten the pink when I get an opportunity. Hogweard (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:European Parliament constituencies 2020–2024
Hi, I saw you created this new template for post-Brexit European Parliament constituencies. Note that for past parliamentary terms, changes to constituencies have been noted via footnotes in the terms' templates, see e.g. Template:European Parliament constituencies 1984–1989. I updated Template:European Parliament constituencies 2019–2024 before I saw what you'd done. I think it would get quite messy if we had separate templates for all changes, what do you think? --Mibblepedia (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Hello, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I noticed that you recently removed content from Jersey without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Hogweard. I see that you have removed content from a range of articles as a result of Brexit. The articles in question certainly need updating, but you should have been editing, rather than deleting, the content. It is important that the articles retain the history regarding these places relationships with the EU. For example, Jersey was never part of the EU, so removing the section that documented what its relationship with the EU has been for 47 years isn't helpful. I've reinstated the text in Jersey and several other articles and amended accordingly. In the case of the Jersey article, changing present tense to past tense in about 17 places was all that was needed. See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cayman Islands, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. CycloneYoris talk! 21:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Chile and Chilean territorial claims.
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit that excluded Chilean Antarctic claims from the map on the article of Chile . As I stated in the edit summary, if Chile cannot display its Antarctic claims, then neither should countries like Norway, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Furthermore, if Chile cannot display its disputed territorial claims then neither should any other country in the world.

Even if supposedly the Chilean Antarctic claims had no legal basis or international recognition, they should still be displayed since Chile considers it to be part of its national territory.

I reverted the edit and added a caption to the map stating that the Chilean Antarctic territory is claimed but not controlled.

AtomsRavelAz (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Antarctic claims
Countries should showcase their Antarctic claims and it should be noted on the caption of said map (E.g.: claimed but not controlled, etc).

Antartic claims are not "fantastical" as you stated on my talk page. Every country that claims part of Antarctica does it for different reasons and none of them are based in "fantasy".

No, adding these territorial claims does not descredit the project at all, in fact, it gives it more credibily.

All content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, removing the Antarctic territorial claims in a country's map goes against this, on the other hand, adding captions, notes,etc clarifying the status of these territories and whether they are controlled by said country or recognized by some other country, whether they have a legal basis,etc is the correct thing to do in order to mantain a neutral and impartial point of view.

It shouldn't be up to us to decide wheter these Antarctic claims are fantastical, it should be up to whoever is reading the article.

For those reasons I will not be removing Antarctic territorial claims from countries' maps as you previously suggested.

Best regards, AtomsRavelAz (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chile. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * I am, of course, referring to your replacement of the infobox map that shows the Chilean Antarctic claim with a map that does not. I see that has already raised this matter so you should not have restored your removal, especially with the rather deceptive summary "Consistency of mapping". Instead, you should discuss your proposed change on the talk page of the article and gain consensus for the change. You have made similar changes at other articles with the same edit summary. The most recent changes have been reverted so you need to take the same action at those articles, especially at Australia and Argentina where such a change has now been reverted more than once. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox maps
I recently began discussions here and here, which might be of interest. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Argentina and Chile; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * A review of the edit histories of both Argentina and Chile does not show that your edit was to a "long standing version". In fact, there is evidence of long-term edit-warring by you. Please participate in discussions at the relevant articles and gain consensus for your changes before making them. Further reversions will result in reports at WP:AN3. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Critic (magazine)


A tag has been placed on The Critic (magazine) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. &#8209; Iridescent 20:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the speedy tag since the article does now have references, but it really does need improvement, otherwise I think it would better to restore the previous iteration now at The Critic (Victorian magazine). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Paint It Black - Tour of Duty
Someone who seems rather enamored of edit warring has twice deleted your note in Paint It Black about Tour of Duty. The first time I reverted the deletion and followed it with a. Though that's a perfectly legit approach, your note and the accompanying were then deleted. Your info belongs there; if you can pop in a good reference, problem solved. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

StHelensPilkingtonsTheHotties,jpg
Hi, it came out of archive images of the public library. Image was dated 1960. It was part of a library of donated photographs etc. The permission for it was gained 11 years ago from the Archive team. I thought the image was tagged CC-Attrib? Is there particular information required I can get? Koncorde (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI - restoring archived content
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Headless Horseman, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please reivew WP:IPCV as well. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Critic (British magazine)


The article The Critic (British magazine) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Questionably-notable periodical, astroturfed by billionaire who (per the magazine's editor) wanted 'culture wars content'. All coverage appears to be around its launch publicity. In particular, in a WP:BEFORE it seems there has been no coverage of The Critic since the launch publicity round; there's no evidence that it's made any impact at all. This fails to meet any of the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL. If we look at the magazine as an organisation, the promotional tour of the press at launch is the only coverage in RSes; this fails to show either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. It looks like you can't buy notability. I'm willing to be shown wrong on this, but it would need to be shown with RS coverage."

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 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 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. David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of The Critic (modern magazine) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Critic (modern magazine) 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 Articles for deletion/The Critic (modern magazine) 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. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)