User talk:Wilfridselsey

=The Owers= There seems to be confusion about the Owers with reference to sandbanks and shoals. Some concise dictionaries describe shoals as sandbanks, but from a marine perspective shoals from the OE are shallows (they can also mean groups of fish etc but not relevant for this discussion). A shoal can be defined as a shallow piece of water that is a potential danger to shipping. Most dictionaries come up with that definition and then go on to give sand or shingle as an example. Some historians have also been confused by the word shoal and have described the Owers as a series of sandbanks which is wrong. The English Channel pilot describes them thus:

The OWERS - Selsea Bill lies 11 miles SW of Littlehampton, and to the southward of the Selsea Bill are the Owers, a variety of shoals composed of several ledges of hard, black rocks......the Middle Owers shoal extends in a NW by W direction 3 1/2 miles to the SW corner of the Boulder Bank. It consists of several rocky heads having as little as 6 to 8 feet in some parts... The English Channel Pilot ISBN 0554869349.

I guess that the Owers have been described as shoals in previous documents, then when an author has been producing a new work they have looked up the definition of shoal it comes out as sandbank. Should have checked marine sources for nautical terms, perhaps?? Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, @Wilfridselsey! As it happens, I scanned this article recently: W. A. R. Richardson, 'The Owers, Les Ours, Weembrug and "The Old City": Place-names, History and Submarine Archaeology', Journal of the English Place-Name Society, 33 (2000-2001), 55-114. I see that it isn't cited in Cymenesora and maybe you would find it interesting? If you want to email me for a copy I'm at a.t.p.hall@leeds.ac.uk. Alarichall (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS: Notes and References


Contents: This section, or series of sections, may contain (1) explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article, (2) citation footnotes that serve to verify specific information in the article, (3) general references (bibliography items) that are not explicitly related to any specific parts of the text or are the target of a short citation.

In a given article, some or all of these three sets may be present. If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function. There may therefore be one, two or three sections in all. A general references section should come after any footnotes section(s), and the explanatory footnotes section should precede the citation footnotes (if they are separate).

Title: The title(s) of these sections depend on which of the three types of item are present, and whether the two types of footnote are combined or separated. Possibilities include: With the exception of "Bibliography", the heading should be plural even if it lists only a single item.
 * for a list of explanatory footnotes only: "Notes", "Footnotes"
 * for a list of citation footnotes only: "References", "Notes" ("Citations" may be used but is problematic because it may be confused with official awards)
 * for a list containing both types of footnote: "Notes", "Footnotes" ("References" may be used but is less appropriate)
 * for a list of general references: "References", "Works cited" ("Sources" may be used but may be confused with source code in computer-related articles; "Bibliography" may be used but may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography).

are you watching
Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain and History of the English language? Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dougweller (talk). I am watching Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. I wasn't watching History of the English language but I will now! I guess that you have flagged these as they both could do with some work? You need some stamina to step into the Oppenheimer debate as you know! I will see what I can do. Rgds. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Selsey Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tudor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
There were two edits of vandalism in your section entitled Background in the Hundred Years War main article. One was a change to bananaempire and another the changing of a country from England to Norwary. I used rollback to remove them. Please review to make sure there are no others in your section, or that anything was incorrectly removed. Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Speaking only for myself, I find it to be a medieval concept that is easy to understand but hard to write and I had some help!!! I am glad you find it acceptable. That means alot to me. Mugginsx (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that there are so many political threads to the hundred years war which makes it quite difficult to weave them all together in a coherent logical manner. It is too easy just to concentrate on various battles etc without explaining the background. I have tried to clean up the beginning section, so it provides a bit of structure. I have put the Scots into context as they pop up later in the article without any apparent reason given. Anyway we will soon see what people think. Wilfridselsey (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent an email but wanted to add that I'll bet you have also made some Scottish editors and readers very happy.Mugginsx (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I hope so, there was virtually nothing about the Scots contribution to the 100 year war in the article, yet they were probably France's most loyal ally at the time, and certainly had a major impact on the progress of the war. I think that the balance of the article was skewed towards the battles and not enough of the reasons behind the conflict. Anyway I hope that I have balanced it up a bit? BTW - I have already voted on the rewording of the lead. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

I have requested temporary page protection from IP vandalism
On Hundred Years War here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection so hopefully you will not be bothered for much longer. The article is looking really good with your improvements. Mugginsx (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok Sir, you are good to go without anymore IP problems anyway. Mugginsx (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes we did seem to be getting more than our fair share of vandalism, so thanks for sorting that out!!
 * It would be nice to get to a point where we can get rid of the citation template, but way to go yet. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the one who inserted the template because, believe it or not, this article used to have NO references in it and NO Reflist. When you feel it can be removed, please feel free to do so.  It is looking very nice, Sir.  Am doing some reading and made some revisions to the sister article #2 in a section which was not historically accurate and referenced it to the writings of Jean de Venette. Mugginsx (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are only inline references in a couple of the sections, as I said there is a way to go yet, before it should be removed. Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the reference section is far too big and complicated, you have changed the Secondary Ref section to Suggested Reading however I think that it is still somewhat confusing. Personally I prefer the simple Notes with embedded in it, then a Reference' section with the full details of the sources used in the reflist. I have had this discussion before when people have argued MoS! However, if you look at the top of this My Talk page I have copied what MoS actually says, and there is also an image that shows that although not strict about it, the Notes/ References is the preferred way to go. I think that in the Bibliography we should only refer to books/url's that are quoted in the  and I would suggest that we change Bibliography to References, as Bibliography means book list, whereas with References you can include URL's etc. What do you think? I hope by the time the article is cleaned up there should be plenty of reading matter in the Ref section anyway!!Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it back the "Suggested Reading" because there is not doubt to me that someone just made a list from WorldCat and then alphabetized and inserted it in the article. I will change that back.  I recommend a Reflist so that the editors remember to reference it!!!   Anyone can make up a list of the most elegent sounding sources and it seems to me that it is most difficult to check but I will defer to your knowledge and experience and your making whatever changes you see fit. 69.183.143.123 (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK - what I will do is change the name of the existing References section to a Notes section, then create a new References section, where we can list the sources used for the article, with the {{Cite.... format. Once that is done we can delete the Bibliography section altogether.  I agree someone has just imported a reading list from elsewhere, it's a bit of a mess really. I think that I need to put this on the talk page before implementing it.Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good
I like your change to the Referencing and Notes Section. It looks good. I especially like the removal of all of the "Secondary Sources" which I always believe were originally just copied from World Cat and alphabetized. Always wanted to see that gone. These and all of your improvements are adding life back into the article and I think they are great improvements. Mugginsx (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the Notes/ Reference format as it is simple and easy to maintain. The previous list was far too long and complicated, whereas now any average reader can understand what is going on. Also, other editors should be able to cope with the new structure and have no problems in providing citations for their work! Thanks also for your copy editing. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox on Hundred Years War main article
I changed some things on the infobox but was not sure of the other countries that were supposedly involved in the conflict, and in particular, to what capacity they were involved. Would you please look over the box and see if it is accurate? I would be happy to assist you in any more changes that need to be made there. The article is looking wonderful as you have revised it with your knowledge and hard work. Mugginsx (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will have to think about that one! I would rather like to see just England Vs. France, because that was about the only certainty and having all the other beligerants just confuses things a bit as most of it was not just black and white. I will do a bit of research on this one and get back to you.
 * I have moved the sentence about Sallic Law into the Notes  section(Note 5) as  it rather interrupted the flow of the narrative, also it was just a bit of a legal slight of hand by a later generation to justify male succession which had been a de facto reality since Charles IV. I didn't know whether to dump the reference altogether, but I think that it sits OK in the Notes section. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I definitely agree about the Infobox just saying England and France. I have made reference to that previously and to the fact that mercenaries should not be mentioned as if the entire country was at war.  It is misleading.  As to removing it myself I am not sure about the history and that is why I have not removed more. In the body of the article I have previously removed (numerous sentences which mention over and over again Valois and Plantagenet for reason given previously on article talk page.
 * I would go for it, change it and in the Edit Summary say "as per discussion on Talk page", I notice that Sabre, was not against the idea and no one else contributed. So you might want to just put a note in the talk page too to explain? Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! Sorry, Sir, I did not see your remark about what to put into the edit history, I apologize.  Anyway, they are well familiar with my remarks about the infobox on the Talk Page, as well as other things such as how many arrows were spent, etc. As to second Hundred Years Article, if you want to make this your life's work, it had in the infobox "casualties" A lot.[[Image:Smile.png|16px]] I just took it out.
 * Unfortunately Wikipedia has quite a few 'rambling' articles without citations. You can put citation requests up, but the original editors always seem very shy at fulfilling those requests, not sure why. I think that we have more citations in the first Hundred Years' War article than all the other Hundred years war articles put together! My main area of interest is the Anglo-Saxon to Norman period, although I do have general knowledge of the Hundred Years war. I am not sure about making it my lifes work but I think I could probably help on the Hundred Years' War (1337–1360) article, as I do have reference material that covers it. I will finish work on the Hundred Years war article first. Do you think that we should change the References/ Sources and bibliography names in the Hundred Years' War (1337–1360) article, to the Notes/ References format that we have in the Hundred Years article?  According to MoS References/ Sources and bibliography is certainly quite acceptable, but it would be nice to standardise the format we use across all the Hundred Year articles.  Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As to you moving the sentences about Sallic Law into Notes, I think Notes are like links - a great way for people to read a "simple text" and then to increase their knowledge as to their level of education, age, etc. I think that the Note is excellent as is everything else you have done on this article. Mugginsx (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Beonna of East Anglia
2 years later, I've updated the article as you have suggested in the talk page. There's a bit more information added as well, if you're interested. Hel-hama (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I only suggested that the 'references' should be sorted out, I think Aboutmovies added a few other suggestions. It's certainly looking a lot better than when I last visited. Well done! rgds Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562536514 your edit] to Battle of Sluys may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * G. H|editor-last=Martin. Tr|location=Oxford|publisher=Clarendon Press|year= 1995|isbn=0-19-820503-1 }}

A barnstar for you!
Thanks. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Burhs
It was nice to see your edits on the burh article, it's an interesting topic and it's good to see Wikipedia's article improving. Nev1 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments! Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by ,

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hundred years war in maps
Hello. I know you've worked on the hundred years war, and at present there are virtually no maps in the article - which to me makes it much less informative. I am wondeting if you have any opinions on maps from Wikimedia Commons that we could put into the article. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have been away, I will look at this soon. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Most of the maps are described in French, so perhaps you have more knowledge of that than my rudimentary tourist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I managed to look at the maps in Commons. Most are not suitable for one reason or another. I think that the following are probably usable. The animated gif has been updated to fix a few issues so I guess is OK now. One of the others uses "English King" rather than "King of England". English King suggests that he would have been English which he definitely was not. See whether you agree:

Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The gif seems most helpful, and compact, for an overview. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Alfred the Great
In September 2013 you made this edit]. Unfortunately the date of the short citation (1996) does not match the long citation (2006) does not match the ISBN date in the World Catalogue of 2007. Please could you take a look at it and reconcile the three. -- PBS (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hum should have been the 2006 edition (ISBN 1-8619-7786-7) not sure why it got messed up. Anyway fixed now Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 10:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Citation need
Hi Wilfridselsey. I just noticed that back in December you added the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a source in the Ragnar Lodbrok article in this edit:. Can you please quote the specific part that records Ragnar, or at least give the the year under which he is mentioned in the text? The thing is I don't think he is mentioned in it. Were you following a secondary source?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking back I think I was just giving a source for the ASC. I have checked this out and have not been able to find a reference to Ragnar in the ASC although some sources seem to mention it Britannica for example. The ASC does follow the progress of his alleged sons as part of the Heathen Army. However, Waggoner explicitly says that there is no reference to Ragnar in the ASC.

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) 14:01, 24 November 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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Stephens (Dean of Winchester), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purley. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Citations with granularity to the year
With regards to this edit to the Alfred the Great article. The way to fix such requests is like this which keeps the short citation (in this case using  but it uses the loc= parameter rather than the p= parameter). This allows the year to be used instead of a page number (loc= can also be used for paragraph (¶), section (§) and other notations as well).

-- PBS (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK - Thanks. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norse activity in the British Isles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamford Bridge. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Allied Healthcare
I don't see anything in SPEEDY which suggests that a company changing ownership justifies speedy deleting. Have I missed something?Rathfelder (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No I think that it this page falls in the cracks somewhat. There is no article on Allied Healthcare, it is just a redirect to Saga. If there was an article on Allied Healthcare then it could have been updated to say that there was a new owner. If there had been an article on the new owner (Aurelius Group), then we could have changed the redirect to that article and updated accordingly. As it stands it does not really make sense why it is redirected to the Saga page. I have just included a note on the saga page to say that Saga had previously owned Allied Healthcare but that is only in the context of a legal action against Allied Healthcare! So I think that all in all it would be better to delete the Allied Healthcare page for now. If someone at some point creates a page on either Allied Healthcare and/ or Aurelius Group that will fix the problem long term.
 * I think that it is easier just to update the Allied Healthcare page....Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Great Northern Railway (Great Britain) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=763178616 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F763178616%7CGreat Northern Railway (Great Britain)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Merger discussion for East Wittering
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;East Wittering&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution Climate Weather Box
Dear Wikipedian,

Given the lack of consensus on the inclusion of a weather box for the Selsey article talk page, I have requested a dispute resolution.

Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Best Regards Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Your comment on coastal erosion (as and I have seemed to have launched into redirect page creation mission today) reminded me of the Medmerry managed realignment scheme section on the Bracklesham Bay article so I just created a re-direct to it (and linked it from the Environment Agency. Feel free to move it, improve it or point at it as you see fit.  Thanks.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Speters selsey.jpg


The file File:Speters selsey.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jutes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constantius. 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) 06:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Pearl II
Please see WP:MOVE, I'm afraid what you did is not the way to do it. Lyndaship (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, long time since I did a move. Using the tools would have been a lot easier, especially as it was only a name change. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I've sorted it out (I hope!) Lyndaship (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Selsey frag.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Selsey frag.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI
This may be useful as background information. - Tournesol (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingdom of Sussex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 2 July 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ReferenceExpander
Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 05:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

0387517902
Code 2405:4802:71B5:C750:E884:F887:FEB1:2A37 (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Thanks for contributing to the article Bromley Palace. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2023 (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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Wilfridselsey. Thank you for your work on The Mixon. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

. Thanks for the feedback. There's probably enough material on The Mixon for three articles on it (Biodiversity, geology, folklore etc. ). But just settled for the one! Best wishes Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)