User talk:Kentem/Archive 1

Image tagging for Image:42344556 west hill railway 203.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:42344556 west hill railway 203.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:42344556 west hill railway 203.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:42344556 west hill railway 203.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Hastings Town Center
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hastings Town Center, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hastings Town Center is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hastings Town Center, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not let me ever catch you using the spelling "center" on an article about Britain! Why do all your coords tags point to Fairlight? In line with your other edits, I suggest you create article/s for the town centre using the ward names. There is a list here. Having added Conquest to Hastings there are now 17 entries! Please delete one and re-arrange the list if necessary. -- RHaworth 11:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stub creep
Please see Talk:Hastings. -- RHaworth 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Ws6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ws6.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

St Leonards (Hastings postcode area)
Hi Kentern, This is just to let you know that I've nominated your article St Leonards (Hastings postcode area) for deletion, as I consider that it's wrongly titled, and in any case unnecessary. --rossb 20:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Central, Hastings
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Central, Hastings, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

North St Leonards
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article North St Leonards, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page.

South St Leonards
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article South St Leonards, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. --rossb (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

East Hastings (Government area)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article East Hastings (Government area), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. --rossb (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ws6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ws6.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A259 road
Hi! I have removed the additions you made to the infobox on this road as they are not primary destinations. For an explanation of what a primary destination is, see Roads in the United Kingdom. Any queries, do ask.Regan123 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Brighton, Sussex, etc.
Hi. A lot of your edits to Sussex-related articles of late are misleading or just incorrect. Whilst it's marvellous that you're obviously keen to put a good deal of effort into Wikipedia, do please take the time to read the edit summaries and talk pages of articles you're involved with. In particular, please stop confusing / changing links between "Brighton" and "Brighton and Hove", and "England" and "United Kingdom", especially using piped links to hide the destination of the link in ways which can confuse readers (when both terms exist). Also, these articles generally require British English spellings, not US English, for reasons described in the Manual of Style. I wonder if you're researching these areas from afar? I'm sure you'd be very welcome to enquire about things you're not close to in the appropriate WikiProject pages &mdash; WikiProject Brighton and WikiProject Sussex, for example. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Please note that I've flagged your articles on Bulverhythe and Silverhill, Hastings per wp:copyvio.

Please do not copy material from other websites. --rossb (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Bulverhythe
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Bulverhythe, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.hastingschoice.co.uk/HASTINGS-HISTORY/west-st-leonards/west-st-leonards-history.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Bulverhythe and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Bulverhythe with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Bulverhythe.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Bulverhythe/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Bulverhythe saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! &mdash; madman bum and angel 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Silverhill, Hastings
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Silverhill, Hastings, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.hastingschoice.co.uk/HASTINGS-HISTORY/st-leonards/st-leonards-history.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Silverhill, Hastings and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Silverhill, Hastings with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Silverhill, Hastings.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Silverhill, Hastings/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Silverhill, Hastings saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! &mdash; madman bum and angel 07:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Clevedon
Hi, Can I ask why you are removing the unitary authority info from the infobox on the Clevedon article?&mdash; Rod talk 19:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mumbai move
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Ganeshk ( talk ) 21:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Bluezy (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

N. I. Counties
Hi. Please note the following (from Lord Lieutenant): ''In 1921, with the establishment of Northern Ireland, lord-lieutenants continued to be appointed through the Governor of Northern Ireland to the six counties and two county boroughs. The creation of the Irish Free State in the following year saw the remaining county lieutenancies in Ireland abolished. In 1973 the counties and county boroughs were abolished as local government units, and Lord-lieutenants are now appointed directly by the Queen to "counties and county boroughs... as defined for local government purposes immediately before 1 October 1973".''

Which means that for "ceremonial" purposes Belfast is in the county borough of Belfast, Derry in the county borough of Londonderry. Also Lisburn and Newry are for lieutenancy entirely in a single county (the one in which they were placed by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898.

Lozleader (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes on Bath article
Hi, I noticed that you have switched the order of the inforboxes on the Bath article so that "Infobox World Heritage Site" appears above "infobox UK place" I do not feel this is appropriate but wanted to try to reach some consensus - so I've started a discussion on the talk page - would you b kind enough to explain your rationale?&mdash; Rod talk 20:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hastings royal suburb of St Leonards-on-Sea
A tag has been placed on Hastings royal suburb of St Leonards-on-Sea, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Please stop adding nonsense redirection pages! --rossb (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

More redirects for deletion
A tag has been placed on Hastings royal suburb of Silverhill, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

A tag has been placed on West m (county), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

--rossb (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Silverhill, Hastings (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. rossb (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Graya.jpeg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Graya.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitchurch, Bristol and Bath and North East Somerset
Can I ask why you changed Bath and North East Somerset to Somerset in the Whitchurch, Bristol article?. The old village is in BANES which is a separate unitary authority.&mdash; Rod talk 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Eastbourne infobox
I noticed you changed the infobox on the Eastbourne article. I personally prefer the original so I have started a discussion on the talk page on which infobox should be used. Please can you pop along and add your opinion to the debate. Thank you. MortimerCat (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland
Hi. You have moved several pages unilaterally without ANY recourse to previous discussions on this topic. Several move proposals have been raised previously, and the consensus has been (through DOZENS of debates) to leave "Ireland" as the island. WP:BOLD is one thing, but this change is TOO bold. You really should have read the previous discussions, and at least checked before making this change. I will be moving for an "undo" until this can be resolved. Guliolopez (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your move. This is a highly controversial subject, so please make sure you have a consensus for any such changes before you make them. Tyrenius (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Settlement edits
I reverted your edits to the doc page. Please see the "usage" section for two collapsible syntaxes. &mdash; MJC detroit  (yak) 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)