User talk:Phil Holmes

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 20:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Doping (semiconductor)
Good job on the doping article! Many of the details of diffusion rates etc. had escaped me, as I've only had the most basic education in this area.

If you would care to expand the III-V section of the article, I think that could use some attention as well.

--Joel 22:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ipswich
I've done something with Ipswich re that image, it's better, but still looks odd, but that's due to the lack of text in the surrounding paragraphs: so feel free to edit the Ipswich article yourself. Alf melmac 12:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OSS
Hi Phil, I added OSI back to "see also" under Amdocs. Objective Systems Integrators is similar to Amdocs since we are an OSS developer. Our OSS framework is NETeXPERT. We've been around for 2 decades. Would it be better to create a new header with a list of OSS vendors? Thanks, Andrew Lee.


 * I deleted your addition because it looks very much like you'd added a link to a company with which you're associated. This would seem to breach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest.  The link it points to is a page where you appear to be the major contributor.  At the time I deleted the link, your company's wiki page was also marked for deletion as non-notable, which would back up the assertion that the link should not have been there.  It seems to me that you are advertising your own company, which would be a breach of Wiki guidelines.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

2009 Formula One season
Your information has been removed again because it is uncited. It is not my responsibility to confirm if references exist for statements you added without citations, twice. If you wish to add information to any article about a future event (see WP:CRYSTAL), please do not be lazy and take the time to properly cite it. Since you seem ot be reading the new regulations, you should be more than able to cite this statement. The359 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A major rule change for a future season of a motorsport is inherently "debatable" since it is ignorant to assume that everyone is aware of all technical regulations and their changes from season to season. A citation is especially necessary for a future sport as, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" (WP:CRYSTAL)  Therefore, verify that these are in fact changes that have taken place by citing your source.  A talk page message telling another user to "look them up in the regulations" is not verification.


 * Also, "which appear to be front wings" appears to be a bit of OR. Either these supposed rule changes discuss front wings or they don't.  What they may appear to be specifically discussing doesn't necessarily belong. The359 (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Robert Hadow
Hi Phil. Thanks for the amendment. Would it be possible for you to take a pic or scan of that family tree and post it online somewhere (Commons?) so that the change can be verified? Re. the family tree, does it call our man Douglas Robert Hadow or Robert Douglas Hadow? I've seen both versions given. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded an excerpt of the tree showing the relevant information at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/HadowTree.png. Please let me know if you need more information.


 * I actually started looking at the Hadow family tree because one of my relatives was a butler to Henry Hadow, and it's become a bit of an obsession tracking them all down. You don't happen to know the name of the great grandfather of Pen Hadow (Rupert Nigel Pendrill Hadow) by any chance?  --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for that. I've put a ref to the family tree in the Douglas Hadow article. Re Pen's distant relation, sorry I haven't a clue, but you might try asking this chap who is a mine of such information. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I found out a couple of hours after asking. It's Arthur de Salis Hadow, a brother of Douglas Robert.  --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah good. A possible connection with Bondo or Soglio? Ericoides (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Took me a while to find it, but no. I reckon it's a homage to a colleague at P&O. See http://www.poships.co.uk/PO%20Chairmen.html --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No relationship to the Soglio Salises then? Ericoides (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses
Regarding your comment in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that autoformatting and autolinking are two different issues. It's currently possible to autoformat dates without having them be linked, and there are further improvements that have been proposed that would allow both of those options to be specified as individual, independent preference settings, and to use the existing date syntax to enable those features. --Sapphic (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In my oppose, I said that it's used as a justification for excessive linking, and I have seen that and therefore believe it to be true. --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm trying to let you know that the date linking and date autoformatting can be disentangled from each other. It's now possible to have dates autoformat without having them be linked.  There are further plans to fix a lot more of the problems with the current autoformatting system, pending the outcome of the poll.  If you're opposed to autoformatting in general (and not just the older version that'd been in place up until a month or so ago, or whenever User:Werdna committed his patch) then could you clarify your reasons on the poll page, so nobody will question the results?  If you're only opposed to having dates be linked, then would you please consider the specific question of autoformatting, independently of that, and then clarify and/or change your position on the poll page?  Or just ignore this request entirely, it's up to you; I won't bug you about it anymore.  --Sapphic (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I've deleted my oppose to autoformatting and moved it to a comment. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Phil, well I'm here to say that while date autoformatting can be disentangled from linking, the proposed system they've got there is untested and still cannot display date ranges (January 3–7, 1990). There is significant doubt that the system can be made to do this, and since after six years the old blue system couldn't be made to do it, I have no confidence in the claims of a few editors that the system will be made to work properly. Date ranges, non-breaking spaces, and other technical issues are set to plague any new system, especially one that is not demonstrated and has no proper specs. That is why we advised taking a cautious, even conservative approach. I have no doubt that your decision to oppose was based on your reading of the Statement against, which outline other issues, too, such as the query as to what the problem is in the first place.

Cheers. Tony  (talk)  05:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not sure if you saw my comment, but I wrote "I'd don't mind either way whether dates have autoformatting options providing it doesn't rely on date linking".  Grammar notwithstanding, anyone reading that in order to determine the result of the poll should be clear on my view? --Phil Holmes (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CheapChop
Thanks for the link about sound card volt meters. Just what I was after! PeterGrecian (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:PunchOnTheLambethConf1867.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:PunchOnTheLambethConf1867.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:AtosOrigin.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:AtosOrigin.gif. 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

File:PlaceSettingCharger.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:PlaceSettingCharger.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons tagging
Identification of images for commons Is Useful editing :) I expect an apology. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Either moving them yourself or doing the editing is useful. Adding thousands of tags is not. No apology forthcoming. Try doing some editing rather than adding useless tags. --Phil Holmes (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So tags for moves to Commons are pointless? Well, Thanks for your opinion. I'd still like an apology for the implication that it's not 'useful' editing though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Phil, I'd like to point out that tagging is not useless. Sfan00 may wish to have other editors move images that he is less sure of (some images have unsure licenses and he may wish to obtain the opinion of someone else). We can't all be copyright gurus, and therefore, it is not a pointless task. Anything editing on this project (for the most part) is beneficial. blurredpeace ☮ 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Phil: please remember to be civil in your responses to other users, as in this example. Jeni  ( talk ) 13:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No Apologies Needed
I, too, have been annoyed by the compulsion of certain editors to move every image to Wikimedia. While they are well meaning (and I personally like SFan00), I don't think they appreciate the problems that this migration to Wikimedia causes, such as a loss of your Watch rights, and the looser regulation of spurious deletion that goes on outside of Wikipedia. All of this is done under the excuse that this will make images available to all Wikimedia projects, however I have found that these images are never used in anything other than Wikipedia, making their efforts pointless. I recommend tagging any important images with Keeplocal, so there is at least a copy kept in WP. It looks like this: You don't owe anyone an apology. Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as they obey GFDL licencing. However, you're supposed to keep the original with GFDL. So I wonder if there's not a problem with moving them over? --CyclePat (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Garneau
Hey Phil, It's Pat Roy. thanks for the contributions at Garneau... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garneau_Logo.png http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Garneau_Logo.png&oldid=188907733  --CyclePat (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Pat, and for your contributions above. In truth, the conversion to jpg is the easy bit - it seems that all the other tagging stuff is what causes the problems.  I may seem a little ratty above, but I've suffered from other authors who think that adding "citation needed" tags all over a page is somehow a positive contribution, and it continues to seem to me that blindly adding tags to pages reqesting someone else do something could be time better spent.  Just my 2p.  --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Phil, Speaking of "citation needed". To conform with GFDL licencing, I think, specially if you want it done properly, you're going to have to upload the picture overtop of the other one. However, I don't know if that's even possible, if you change from .png to .jpg. Also, I remember reading about which format to take and I clearly remember at the time Wikipedia saying something along the line of .jpg for photos and .png for documents or scans. This is a scan. But meuh. Anyways, well wait and see what happens regarding the speedy delete of the original photo. If they agree that it should be deleted, I will move that we, re-instate the .png. (I hope there's no offence taken) Licencing... referencing... etc... as discussed in the licencing section of the photos themselves. Anyways, it's all about keeping in touch with your Spirituality and keeping a "clean view" on things. If something bothers you, then perhaps there's something you need to explore and talk about so it brings you peace. God bless. p.s.: I imagine you looked at my user profile. No matter the case... "hard fact are hard to find. Usually what we have are POVs" (see the rest of this saying on my profile) Which essentially means, in general, we have a lot of "citations needed" (pun intented) --CyclePat (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

CanOfWorms isn't interested in discussing the issue, numerous editors have contacted him regarding his addition of fact tags about various problems and have invariably been met with hostility. The tags are generally fair, although he does make mistakes, so I think in general it's best to leave him alone. Reinstating your question on his talk page will only serve to piss him off, so it's best just to let the issue go. You're right though, sometimes he doesn't bother looking for the reference, or even to the end of the sentence. Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

CanOfWorms
Stop reverting his edits to his talk page. I know he's dick and all, but the rules says he's allowed to do that.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or put another way, as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages.  The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors).  These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system.  Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok folks, that's three different people asking Phil Holmes not to revert user's edits to their own user space. I think he gets the message. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

DWP
Howdy! No probs re. correction... as a former employee of the DWP myself, they are not known for their speediness regarding their updates! :) BNC85 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Laptop weather station
How do you use it as one?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Meteorologist
So you want to be a Meteorologist?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Fdw preload

File:Garneau Logo.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Garneau Logo.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. CyclePat (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Garneau_Logo.jpg
I have tagged File:Garneau_Logo.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Rockfang (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup 14 November
Another Cambridge meetup is set for the afternoon of Saturday 14 November. Please contribute to the page and come along if you can. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AtosOrigin.png
 Thanks for uploading File:AtosOrigin.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

File:GaudyNight.jpg
Did you forget to add a license tag for this image, during it's upload?

Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, so images need to have an appropriate license tag.

You may wish to read Image_copyright_tags which will assist you :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:GaudyNight.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:GaudyNight.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pensions in the UK - request for feedback
Hi Phil, I notice you've been contributing to the Pensions_in_the_United_Kingdom article, and I'd like to ask your advice. I'm a little concerned about the historically comparative values of pensions mentioned in the lede of the article, and have been trying to contact the editor who originally cited them. Could I ask that you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mauls#UK_Pensions_problem and let me know whether you think the article would be better for the suggestions I've made? Regards, Revera (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Got your message, and will take it up on the article's talk page as you suggest. Thanks, Revera (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tremaen
Hello, I do not think leaving the page without a source is adequate. At the minimum there should be an item "Source" citing the website. Its purpose in External links is to supplement whatever the article provides. It needs to be possible to distinguish information based on the website from that added in the future from other sources. "Citing sources: ensures that content can be checked by any reader or editor, which improves the credibility of Wikipedia, shows that your edit is not original research, plagiarism, or a copyright violation, ensures that material about living persons complies with the biography of living persons policy, helps readers find additional information."--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MCert2.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:MCert2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Firefox
Hello, I've answered your question on the computer refdesk about my firefox problem; it's dragged on so long [mostly because I only use my infected machine once a day] that the question has been archived, so I thought I'd tell you here! Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject East Anglia
Would you be interested in WikiProject East Anglia?

If yes, please support us here at WikiProject Council/Proposals/East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk  talk  22:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing maintenance templates form ImDisk
Hello, Phil

I see that you have removed problem templates from ImDisk article, stating "article looks OK to me". Well, let's see if it is indeed so: Paragraphs two, three and four need source because they have none. The article also lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All its citations are also bare links! Well, it seems this is article is not okay at all.

Please don't remove problem templates again. Fleet Command (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I can. You yourself said "bold" change. Hence, undoing your bold edit is well within the purview of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Now, notability requires evidence as stated in WP:N and this article lacks it. As for the required sources, I say again for the last time, I see statements there that the two present sources cannot verify.  And as for tags being obtrusive: The comfort of your pet is my least priority, especially when you write "article looks OK to me", which is not true. Those tags should stay put until the problems are solved. Fleet Command (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, ImDisk was nominated for deletion. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Help Desk
When you said: You need to know the frontal area, I replied in the Science desk. Can you please come to the help desk(Science)?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re Net access for Ubuntu in a virtual box
Thanks for your help with my question regarding getting 'net access with Ubuntu on a virtual machine. After leaving that question and then leaving work, I asked for help the next day at the IT help desk at my school. They were also unable to help. After playing around with it some more, I gave up for the day again and again. Finally tonight at work, it suddenly works as it should! I don't know why since I hadn't changed anything from the last time that I was fiddling with it. Thanks for your help though. I appreciate it! Dismas |(talk) 09:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CABLogo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:CABLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:BirdNgoro.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BirdNgoro.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:BirdNgoro.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BirdNgoro.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

your opinion (East Anglia Array)
Thank you for your opinion and decision. An image is not relevant in a page that does not have any image...

I know it's hard to make a page and get someone to come in with information you don't have, but those things happen. regards -- (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Operations support system question
Phil, I just left a message for you on the Wikipedia talk page Talk:Operations support system. Would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. TadgStirkland401 (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Woodbridge, Suffolk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Suffolk ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Woodbridge%2C_Suffolk check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Woodbridge%2C_Suffolk?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) 09:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ramsay Muir
Hi Phil, thanks for your reply at the RefDesk. I see you don't have Wikipedia email enabled. Is it OK for me to email you via your linked homepage, so that you can email your list back? DuncanHill (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have mail, at the mail@ address. DuncanHill (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

About the dialect native language thing
I honestly think it should count, I know you're from suffolk, i'm from essex and my main interest is around the whole east anglian dialect continuum, I think dialects are just as important as languages and the lines are also hard to draw between a dialect and a language either way, the main reason is, I don't think wikipedia itself should gloss over other names for places in dialects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judeobasquelanguage (talk • contribs) 15:23, 25 May 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) 00:21, 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)