User talk:Hughcharlesparker

Orphaned non-free media (File:XtrilogyDVD.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:XtrilogyDVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Keith Stammers


The article Keith Stammers has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable local councillor, fails WP:POLITICIAN

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I was a much less experienced editor when I created that article. Clearly it doesn't need to be there.  Delete away.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 21:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

List of oldest schools in the UK
You have reverted an edit by me to the list of non-extant schools.

1. These aren't sentences, they are facts in a list. For instance: "Foster's School (1640) - closed 1992", which appears here, is not a sentence, but 'Foster's School was founded in 1640 and closed in 1992." is. That's why none of these listings are terminated by a full stop. 2. Because these aren't sentences, the word "in" is not necessary, and if it was, why isn't it necessary in similar entries in this list which don't include it (see above: Foster's School)? 3. By reverting my edit - an intervention normally used in the case of bad faith edits and vandalism, which you will presumably agree this edit wasn't - you have also removed the listing of Prescot Grammar School which I had added.

Rather than get into an edit war, I invite you to restore my edit yourself.Robocon1 (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I accept of course that your edit wasn't vandalism, and I didn't mean to imply that it was. I'm sorry if that's the impression you were left with.  I hadn't noticed the bit about Precott Grammar School; I've restored it.  You're also right about consistency; I've added the word "in" to the five entries that were missing it.  In American English, "closed 1929" reads perfectly normally.  In British English, it just sounds odd.  Since this is an article about Britain, I think we should stick with the British usage.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So you imagine "Hull Grammar School (c.1330, endowed 1479) – closed in 2005" is a sentence do you? It's nothing to do with American or British 'usage' - it's not a sentence, and 'in' adds nothing except an extra two letters. And why doesn't 'endowed' need qualifying with 'in'? It seems ironic that many of the schools listed here are grammar schools.Robocon1 (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't imagine that they're sentences, no. They're sentence fragments.  I agree with the previous editors who've left the "in" in, that it reads better as it is.  Thanks for pointing out that I'd missed Hull Grammar School's endowment date.  I can't find anything relevant in the Manual of Style, so I suppose if this is a big issue for you, raise it on the talk page.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 21:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And I agree with the editors who left it out. You imagine we're American, I suppose. You'll need to add 'in' to all the foundeds, refoundeds and mentioneds for the all the schools in all the other lists in this article, then.

But seriously, I think, with respect, that the point here is that you reverted a good faith edit without warning or consultation and removed information without even realising you'd done it. Robocon1 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC).


 * I've already apologised for mistakenly removing the entry you added, and I've already put it back. I've already said that I'm sorry if you took my use of the revert tool as an accusation of vandalism.  As I've said, if you think it reads better without the word "in", and you think it's important, then it isn't appropriate for us to come to a decision between us, it needs to be taken to the talk page.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 22:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I must apologise for not having thanked you for restoring the edit, but I still don't think that whether the word 'closed' needs modifying in a list of institutions and events is the main point. Reverting a good faith edit which is factually correct and cited to other wikipedia articles via links without warning could normally be reasonably interpreted as inviting an edit war. The main purpose of my edit was clearly stated in the edit history. I'd say it's generally a good idea to check what is being reverted before taking that step.

And I must point out (once again with the greatest respect) that you haven't already apologised: saying you accept my edit wasn't vandalism isn't an apology, neither is saying you didn't mean to imply it was, and "I'm sorry if that's the impression you were left with" is a regret for my interpretation of your action, not an apology.Robocon1 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please reserve the use of the word "vandalism" for actual vandalism
This was not vandalism. I don't completely understand why User:Harizotoh9 made that edit but it seems to have been made in good faith. See WP:Not vandalism. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The diff you linked was me reverting Harizotoh9's vandalism, and you're right to say it wasn't vandalism. This is the edit I was reverting, and it was vandalism; without any good reason or any explanation, he'd removed a section heading that needed to be there.  This is Harizotoh9's talk page, and it shows that it wasn't the first time.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MoS:L listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:L. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:L redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

MoS:ABB listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:ABB. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:ABB redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

MoS:BIO listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:BIO. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:BIO redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

MoS:DATE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:DATE. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:DATE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

MoS:T listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:T. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:T redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

MoS:TM listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:TM. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:TM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Double-nosed Andean tiger hound for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Double-nosed Andean tiger hound 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/Double-nosed Andean tiger hound 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.

Nomination of The Daily Campus for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Daily Campus 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 Daily Campus 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. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination at
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at  on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk  09:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:SURVEY" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SURVEY&redirect=no Wikipedia:SURVEY] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Remsense 诉  17:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)