User talk:Millstream3

Proposed deletion of Stamford and Rutland Hospital


The article Stamford and Rutland Hospital has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication of how it meets WP:NOTABILITY. A 22-bed hospital is unlikely to do so."

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. Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Stamford and Rutland Hospital for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stamford and Rutland Hospital 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/Stamford and Rutland Hospital until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Leo Pellegrino for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leo Pellegrino 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/Leo Pellegrino until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  16:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

NHS ambulance services
I agree that the three articles should be merged. I must say I assumed Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom would have something to say about A&E departments, but it actually seems to be about ambulance services. I think the best title is NHS ambulance services. There is no obvious reason to separate out the era of trusts from the earlier history, and trusts may not last much longer. Rathfelder (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Negative harmony
Hello, Millstream3. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Negative harmony, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh Talk  23:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I created this as a redirect to Ernst Levy's page. I suggest the material is merged in to that. Best wishes.  Millstream3 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Hospital trust
I have removed the tag from Hospital trust, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Graham Sheen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AGSM ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Graham_Sheen check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Graham_Sheen?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Poulenc
You write that their are other sonatas for clarinet and bassoon, but if they ever get an article (which I doubt), - they could come with their composer's name, while Poulenc's work seems the "primary topic". Consider to revert the move. I am listening to JHunterJ (sometimes). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy to leave it until the issue arises. I will revert. Millstream3 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Re List of hospitals in England
Millstream 3,

Please search, case sensitive, "london hospital" and "London hospital". These both take one to the "London" section of List of hospitals in England. Search, again case sensitive, "London Hospital". This takes one to Royal London Hospital with a redirect and see Casualty 1900s note at the top of the article. Perhaps the see this note in the article "List of hospitals in England" should be under "London" section. Or do you have an alternative solution to this problem of a U.S. resident looking for a British show which was telecast there under a different name?

Thanks.

Denise B-K (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Denisebk


 * Hi Denise B-K, thanks for that point. I've changed the redirect at london hospital to go to Royal London Hospital. This more directly solves the problem. Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry about deleting the reference! ShyCormorant (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonexistent templates
Template:"' does exist (or rather it redirects to a template). You can tell if a template that's attempted to be used that doesn't exist because it looks like this: Template:non-existent template. If it seems to "do nothing", it probably just does something subtle. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That is a new one on me, and useful. Millstream3 (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matthew Wilkie


The article Matthew Wilkie has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG, all sources are either unreliable, minor mentions or dependent on the subject, thus failing WP:SIGCOV"

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. CiphriusKane (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Categories
Hi - I noticed that you've deleted a lot of categories lately. I'm pretty sure that categories aren't meant to be what we'd usually consider "categories" - sets containing certain objects. Just related articles. At least that's what I was told when I did the same thing many years ago. Maybe that's changed, and I'm sure you could ask someone who knows for sure how this works. - Special-T (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Special-T, I have removed a number of articles from Category:Woodwind instruments where these are more appropriately categorised in a subcategory, for example Category:Flutes, or where it is not an instrument but part of an instrument, for example Category:Musical instrument parts and accessories. I hope I've done this in a consistent and logical way - the top level category is now a lot cleaner. Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Right. In this case, I'm wondering if there should be a Woodwind subcat of Parts & Accessories, which is itself a subcat of Woodwind Instruments (like there is for Brass). This way that this article is still connected to the category Woodwind Instruments. I asked at the Teahouse and was directed to the explanation of "set" categories and "topic" categories. The latter are used to connect related topics that aren't strictly members of a set.  What do you think? - Special-T (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me! Millstream3 (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Moving road articles to disambiguation
Hello Millstream3 -- Could you please explain why you are doing this? The articles don't currently need disambiguation. I see no guidance that states it is necessary. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies, this was a misunderstanding on my part. I have undone the 'move's. Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wondered if I was missing something. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

UK-EU GDPR video
Hi there, I thought I would give some background on this video at General Data Protection Regulation and explain as I reverted the delete on this page. The video was produced by ORG to be as neutral and factual as possible and to avoid any possible copyright issues so it could be used on Wikipedia. It was published in a different version with some fair use and royalty free clips on Youtube (see information at Commons). I have left an email address on the Commons video in case anyone wishes to confirm that ORG licences this as cc-by-sa. In any case, if there are copyright queries it would be better to use the WM Commons procedure for deleting the video, rather than simply removing it from the page, as it could be placed on other pages and would still be violating copyright at WM Commons. Also, the folks at Commons have some people who understand licencing and associated issues well. Hope that helps! Jim Killock (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim Killock apologies - I was too quick to act on this. As you are no doubt aware, this page is real spam magnet and I wrongly assumed this video was in that category. I do think it would be helpful to add some explanation of the video in a citation so that people can understand what it is. Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, yes that makes sense. I will add a citation as you suggest. Jim Killock (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2022 (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) 00:32, 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Royal Academy of Music Financial Statements
Hi there, in regards to your revision of my edit: please use another browser or device to access this publicly available link: https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/whitespace-ram/production/documents/Royal-Academy-of-Music-Financial-Statements-Year-Ended-31-July-2023.pdf regarding RAM's Annual Review. The link to the document can be found here: https://www.ram.ac.uk/about-us/governance/financial-statements. EmyRussell (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks EmyRussell - the URL was not working yesterday, but is working fine today. My apologies! Millstream3 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Cite news
The edit summary of my revert of your revert was limited by space. I recognise your challenge is in good faith as the documentation of Template:Cite news is not ever so clear because it is trying to cover too many options at once..

But first and foremost, work=* and publisher= are NOT interchangeable. The current publisher of the Milton Keynes Citizen is National World Publishing Ltd; previously it was Reach, Johnson Press, EMAP: who knows which of these it was at the time of the story who knows and who cares? Frankly, publisher= for newspapers is a waste of space. It exists because broadly the same template (CS1/2 citations) is also used for books and journals, where it does matter. A more obvious example is The Times and The Sun, published by News International. Of course if you really want to give the publisher, nobody will really mind but the work= is essential.

(* or newspaper=, though I ignore that one – why use eight letters when four will do and more importantly it is not appropriate for BBC News)

The option website= is used for news media that are only (or primarily) web based, like The Independent. It is not relevant otherwise. (It will work with 'ordinary' newspaper citations too but when a newspaper story has a url=, that gives the relevant web page and from there you can navigate to the top level if you really want. IMO, it is background noise but nobody will object if you add it.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to be absolutely clear: we must not put deliberate falsehoods into articles. You know that publisher=Milton Keynes Citizen is false. The website= is a "nice to have", it is not essential and your logic leads you to deliberate falsehood to include it, then your logic is wrong.
 * If you believe that the current behaviour of the template is a bug or error, report it at template talk:cite news. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)